Military Review

Russian Navy - Can't Be Pardoned to Execute?

370

The main naval parade is a wonderful sight and seems to be one of the main reasons for the existence of our fleet.

Source: kremlin.ru

The naval section of the "Military Review" was overwhelmed by a furious storm: the mastodons of the site in the person of M. Klimov and A. Timokhin fend off an article by other respected authors - R. Skoromokhov and A. Vorontsov.

- Does Russia need a strong fleet?
- A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error.

The topic of discussion is perhaps somewhat trivial, especially in the historical context. Its relevance, however, remains unchanged ...

Does Russia need a fleet?


This topic for the noble Russian society can be called as painful as the topic of nuclear weapons for the American society. It can be characterized by an extremely simple but well-defined phrase - "a suitcase without a handle."

It was not for nothing that I mentioned the attitude of the United States towards its nuclear arsenal.

No matter how funny and strange it may sound for us, the inhabitants of Russia, the "triad" for the inhabitants of the States has become an extremely costly object of state prestige. In Congress, Democrats are breaking spears in verbal battles with Republicans, either offering to completely reduce the ground part of the triad, or even getting rid of atomic weapons altogether.

For Russia, the fleet has become a similar problem.

Of course, one should agree with the assertions of Alexander Timokhin, who has repeatedly written that even in the professional community, the goals and objectives of the naval forces are understood extremely primitively and wrongly. And the fleet is perceived only as a little-functional element of national prestige.

The complexity of conceptual perception is superimposed on others: technical, economic, scientific, demographic. As a result, we get a dead end: even the top military leadership of the country cannot create at least some relevant and effective strategy for the use of naval forces.

The ineffectiveness of the fleet's weapons programs and the low return on targeted investments in it can be justified, first of all, precisely by the conceptual lack of understanding of its role in the Russian armed forces. And without any clear theoretical views, it is simply impossible to create an effective navy.

In such conditions, "rocket gunboats" (like Buyan-M) do not just get the "green light" to the detriment of larger and more functional ships. By no means, the concept of their use (to throw a cruise missile from point A to point B at a distance of 1,5 kilometers to the bad guys and change their location using river routes) is quite clear to the top management.

Even an amateur has a practical benefit: from the construction of a "rocket-mosquito" fleet. In the eyes of people uninitiated in the intricacies of naval affairs, this looks absolutely intelligible and logical. Unlike complex, obscure, large and expensive aircraft carriers.

What solution can be found in such a situation?

When are we (like the Americans) unable to “throw the suitcase away” and don't know where to put it?

Someone proposes even larger investments in the construction of new ships and the expansion of the naval forces. Someone calls for getting rid of the fleet altogether, leaving only those notorious “missile gunboats”. Someone is looking for an answer in a large series of strategic bombers, as A. Vorontsov and R. Skoromokhov did.

Personally, I tend to disagree with any of them.

Perhaps it is worth saying right away that I do not plan to consider and condemn the absurd ideas about the complete elimination of the fleet.

Even if a country does not understand its need now, this does not mean that it will not understand its value later. Nobody offers to get rid of the Strategic Missile Forces because they "have not defeated anyone."

And the situation with the naval forces is absolutely the same.

This is one of the elements of ensuring defense capability. This means that it is necessary - albeit not in its current form.

All sorts of bias in favor of the fleet of "anti-submarine strategic bombers" are also hardly suitable for our realities. Take a look at the argument given by A. Vorontsov and R. Skoromokhov:

“So the US needs a weapon that projects its power very quickly and efficiently.

And as such a weapon, the United States uses its strategic bombers B-52 and B1 Lancer. "

This is hardly the main argument.

Primarily because the Americans have these bombers have already been - they just refitted them, including in part already existing system.

In addition, the B-52 and Tu-160 are vehicles of completely different concepts and characteristics.

However, Alexander and Roman were right about one thing - the sea aviation is required.

Let's say more - a comprehensively developed naval aviation with the appropriate infrastructure looks the most attractive, understandable and practical way to invest in our naval power.

Of course, the reasoning of A. Timokhin about a strong fleet for our country is difficult to label as “false” or “wrong”. Sometimes, albeit with very specific examples, Alexander offers quite rational concepts.

However, it is worth adding a fly in the ointment.

Fabrications of this kind are not suitable for the current realities of our state. And they do not fit, first of all, because of the very “land-continental thinking”.

The idea of ​​the navy as an independent branch of the armed forces capable of being a conductor of global geopolitics is absolutely unviable as long as the navy remains psychologically and strategically a "suitcase without a handle."

At the moment, the fleet is not facing any adequate operational and tactical tasks.

Its current existence is determined by vague formulations such as "ensuring the protection of national interests."

Yes, the "SSBN cover", which has set everyone's teeth on edge, if it comes to at least some specifics.

What large-scale naval construction can we talk about in such conditions?

How can a power, with four potential water war zones and a huge land border with many hostile neighbors, find a balance between efficiency and necessity?

The reasoning given below is, of course, a private view of the topic.

Of course, asking yourself this question, many may come to a completely different answer - but mine will be unambiguous: aviation.

Aviation


The construction of naval aviation looks like the most adequate and practical solution possible. in the current environment, such as:
- Separation and geographical remoteness of theaters of naval operations.
- Poor development of the naval infrastructure.
- The unwillingness of the industry to ensure the construction of large series of ships with an effective composition of weapons.
- Lack of adequate concepts and strategies for the creation and use of the fleet.
- The presence of a local preponderance of the forces of potential adversaries over the Russian Navy.

Of course, such a concept cannot be considered outside the framework of a full-fledged set of measures, both for the development of military infrastructure and for the reduction of existing work on the sluggish development of the ship's personnel.

It cannot be said that the current ship composition in this case will go under liquidation. Not at all. We need the available forces both to give combat stability and to save money in order to more effectively implement the fleet development strategy. The ships must be repaired, modernized. (But only for reasons of practicality - modernization is necessary only in cases where it will contribute to both the extension of the vessel's service life and essential increasing his fighting qualities).

And build new ones - albeit at the current modest pace. (But with one essential condition - for the sake of saving money and targeting practicality, it is necessary to stop launching all kinds of "rocket gunboats" - the allocated money is much more expedient to spend on multipurpose fighter-bombers).

Russian Navy - Can't Be Pardoned to Execute?
The Chinese artificial island of the Fiery Cross is an aircraft carrier for people with a "land-continental" mindset.
Source: © digitalglobe.com

The primary task can be noted the extremely painful problem for our armed forces, the problem of AWACS aircraft. And no one will deny that they are vital for us, both at sea and on land.

There is no point in building a "fleet of naval strategic bombers" and "large series of URO destroyers" if we do not have adequate target designation and effective radar coverage. Thus, the most balanced and sharpest blade will be useless in the hands of a blind man.

It is incredibly important for both the Aerospace Forces and the Navy to get the A-100 Premier at their disposal - in the current reality, it remains to be hoped that this machine will soon be put into production.

It is critically important to invest money not in "light aircraft carriers" that do not have any infrastructure for operation, but directly in the infrastructure itself: in naval shipyards, in supply and repair bases, in the construction of airfields, in radar posts.

Many often nod towards the PRC, trying to use as an argument the large-scale pace of development of the Chinese fleet, but they completely forget that our eastern neighbor has been developing the logistics sector for decades, while for many years being content with a mosquito fleet, naval aviation and ground anti-ship complexes.

Moreover, China, with all its industrial capabilities, for some reason does not hesitate to create "unsinkable aircraft carriers" in the form of bulk islands.

We continue to dream of megalomania, stubbornly avoiding the theme of developing a strong ground defense of our coast.


A well-prepared infrastructure is the foundation of any military campaign. And our enemies think about it much more than we do.
Source: logisticsinwar.com

Unfortunately, the USSR at one time made a similar mistake, developing large-scale naval construction without the construction of an adequate accompanying infrastructure. And we all know very well what a tragedy it turned out later.

The basis of war is logistics


So why did we decide that it would be different in naval war?

Passing further, it can be noted that the statement that the updated strike forces of the Navy must first of all be formed on the basis of aviation, due to the geographical separation of our fleets, will not be incorrect. Only aviation will make it possible to urgently strengthen our defense in potentially dangerous areas during a threatened period.

Of course, talking about such a topic is much easier than making real decisions. Even now (at the level of theoretical reasoning) we are faced with a number of chronic problems that will not know when they will receive their solution. In addition to the absence of AWACS aircraft, we have practically no anti-submarine aviation as a class. Il-38 and Il-38N are outdated long ago. And we are talking not only about its replacement, but even a full modernization. But we need PLO aircraft like air, given the length of our sea borders and the number of water areas.

We do not have any intelligible patrol aircraft either. As there are no adequate promising projects. All this is superimposed on the difficulties with the launch of the production of new types of transport and passenger aircraft for long-haul airlines, without which it is impossible to create an updated air fleet.

However, we have excellent multipurpose Su-35S fighters - machines that have been proven in combat conditions and have been fine-tuned in production. (Recall 112 units in 11 years is an excellent pace for today's times). Run-in among the troops, ready without additional upgrades for the use of X-35 anti-ship missiles and other high-precision weapons.

I will not talk about how many of them need to be in naval aviation. But in order to create a strike force, we should first order these heavily armed, modern aircraft at a favorable price for the armed forces.

The idea of ​​creating specialized naval vehicles based on front-line bombers Su-34 looks almost criminal in my eyes. Such a step will entail additional R&D, a delay in the launch of production, and the lack of unification with the Aerospace Forces fleet (including in terms of preparation). And it will sharply narrow the range of tasks performed by naval pilots.

With a well-equipped strike aircraft specializing in naval warfare, we will be able to provide a real battle to any potential enemy, especially in such closed waters as the Black and Baltic Seas.

In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, the Aerospace Forces will not have to allocate air regiments to protect the ship's composition. On the contrary, the fleet will be able to independently carry out combat missions, having its own fighter cover and overwhelming superiority in the number of missile salvoes. And in such conditions, it is not at all for us to ensure the survival of the miserable remnants of the surface (and if the industrialists swing and issue a new PLO aircraft, then the submarine) fleet.

So, let us single out a number of theses in favor of the priority development of naval aviation:
- The ability of the aviation industry to ensure the mass production of most of the aircraft types required by the fleet.
- A number of demanded aircraft are already in production, and we know their combat and operational capabilities.
- Aviation has a wider functionality, fitting into the standard fleet budget. (Of course, if we are not talking about "anti-submarine strategic bombers").
- Naval aviation can be largely unified with the Aerospace Forces, capable of performing tasks similar to those of the Aerospace Forces and, if necessary, provide support for our troops even not in the naval theaters of the military base. (For example, it will be somewhat problematic to use a frigate from the Northern Fleet somewhere in the steppes of the Southern Urals, but the Su-35 is quite possible).
- Aviation is a high-tech sector of the economy that spurs both science and industry. And with a high export potential (in the current realities, much larger than the fleet).
- Formation of orders for promising aircraft platforms can move the stagnant projects of the aviation industry off the ground, which will have a positive effect on both defense capability and the economy.
- Aviation is a conceptually understandable weapon close to our leadership. At the same time, it has a huge range of capabilities required by our Navy.


The striking power of our naval forces should be embodied in a similar quality, and not in the form of "rocket boats".
Source: mil.ru

What tasks will the naval forces be able to carry out in full, whose construction will rely primarily on aviation and a developed ground infrastructure?

This provision:
- Long-range radar control, detection and target designation.
- Patrol and search tasks (in the presence of a full-fledged UAV air fleet, patrolling, including remote zones, can be carried out at least around the clock).
- Anti-submarine defense.
- Reconnaissance actions using electronic and other means (including with the involvement of electronic intelligence ships - this class of ships should be developed in the first place: the Soviet experience proves that long-range reconnaissance is much more valuable in matters of ensuring the country's defense than any aircraft carriers).
- Quantitative and qualitative superiority or parity over potential local opponents. (Which is impossible under the current conditions with the use of the available forces. But it is quite possible with the development of naval aviation - say, for Turkey or Poland that do not have their own aviation industry, such a strategy will have catastrophic consequences in the near future).
- Construction and operation of military infrastructure facilities, contributing to both duplication and redundancy of existing ones, and the implementation of current tasks. (Investments in the previously listed logistics facilities will be a valuable and rewarding investment for decades to come. They will pay off, both now and in the future, if the naval component of the naval forces expands.)
- Formation of expeditionary groups based on the current ship composition. (This measure suggests itself since the beginning of the Syrian campaign, in which the fleet did not show itself in the best way. It is because of the lack of specialized operational-tactical units. In the presence of a strong coastal defense and local air superiority, it is quite realistic to ensure the presence of the Navy in potentially dangerous areas ).

Thus, we can see that the strategy of planned and comprehensive development of the aviation component of the Navy turns the fleet from a useless and expensive toy into a separate and effective type of armed forces that can both act independently (which is currently impossible) and provide comprehensive support to others. structures in the ranks of our Armed Forces.

This vector makes it possible to obtain the first results in a relatively short time (7–12 years). They will really affect the country's defense capability, while positively affecting the industrial and economic sectors.

The current forces of the fleet will not only not be cut down, but will also receive an adequate material and technical base, and will also be significantly strengthened by strike aviation.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the creation of a serious reserve in the event of a large-scale war (including a land war), which ensures the creation of a solid air fleet with all the necessary infrastructure and its inherent mobility. (Here we can talk about many extremely favorable logistic factors: about the creation of stocks of high-precision weapons, spare parts warehouses, fuel depots, additional flight and engineering personnel, etc.).

In such conditions, it will be possible to carry out work for the future: the comprehensive and active operation of naval aviation will provide an excellent groundwork for the creation of carrier-based aviation. (If, of course, such a need arises).

This will provide reprieve for the naval industry, which is having serious problems with the pace of shipbuilding, and will provide a ready-made infrastructure for the potential further development of the fleet.

The current ship composition can be used to strengthen the presence of the armed forces in the directions we need.

Thus, our "land continental" will be perfectly combined with such an approach, providing military power, coupled with understandable, psychologically and politically close to us concepts.
Author:
370 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. WHAT IS
    WHAT IS 17 March 2021 10: 07
    +32
    You can't execute.
    "Any Potentate who has a single land army has one hand, but which also has a fleet has both hands."
    Peter I
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 17 March 2021 10: 15
      +20
      "All our deeds will be overthrown if the fleet is wasted"
      Peter the Great
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 17 March 2021 10: 40
        +23
        and officials every couple of years to hang ... the quotes are cool ... but the current ones do not care. laugh ...
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 17 March 2021 12: 26
          -13%
          the fleet is needed for what? where to protect the money of Russian business people (not the olicarchs?). No money, we will freeze, there are no state interests, and the fleet is not needed there either.

          ONLY GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF CATS AND SHEEP COMBINED WITH THE GROWTH OF 4-Lane HIGHWAYS FOR 1 THOUSAND KM / YEAR WILL MAKE TO BUILD A FLEET - protection from imports of milk powder and meat. and who about "the greatness of the Russian state" is a clinic. pike vests.

          "the youth are all in the cowsheds!" weak?
          no one here needs their milk and meat - ego warms up - let me steer the Aircraft carrier or strategist

          it is easier to defend an empty territory - by the last counter-counterparts and "..to paradise .."
          And for the protection of cattle, we need conventional and PM fleet
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 17 March 2021 13: 24
            +10
            Quote: antivirus

            ONLY THE GROWTH OF THE NUMBER OF CATS AND SHEEP IN COMBINATION WITH THE GROWTH OF 4-Lane HIGHWAYS FOR 1 THOUSAND KM \ YEAR WILL MAKE TO BUILD A FLEET - protection from imports of powdered milk ...

            And for the protection of cattle, we need conventional and PM fleet

            A kind of presentation ...
            However, I agree with the essence.
            The economy builds the fleet, not the other way around.
            But about milk, but soon we will cover all our own needs for milk, poultry and pork. But on the price tags in the store, all this "our" is almost like "someone else's". And our butter, and eggs, and apples, but this is almost not reflected in retail ...
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 17 March 2021 13: 54
              0
              "structure of property" (together - the fornicator from TV) to whom does "milk and meat" pay dividends? who for s \ parts and other little things? separation from the West is isolationism. and 4-lane, high-speed ones are needed to connect regions and low cost - these factors will allow (all results in the future time !!) to reduce costs and increase the rate of capital turnover.
              1. Sergej1972
                Sergej1972 17 March 2021 14: 40
                +3
                It is also necessary to develop and improve railway transport as an alternative to the hypertrophied developed road transport.
                1. frog
                  frog 18 March 2021 08: 57
                  +3
                  To begin with, there was no need to exhaust him .... Then, it would be nice to send those involved to the construction of the Magadan-Anadyr branch, and not at all to Spain. Further, it is not bad to let those who at least understand something to control, and not the next ... ... those who are hungry ...
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 18 March 2021 04: 10
              +1
              Quote: Doccor18
              But about milk, but soon we will cover all our own needs for milk, poultry and pork. But on the price tags in the store, all this "our" is almost like "someone else's". And our butter, and eggs, and apples, but this is almost not reflected in retail ...

              In a market economy, the price practically does not depend on the cost price, and is determined by the effective demand.
              1. pin_code
                pin_code 18 March 2021 06: 32
                +1
                that is, by the arrogance or greed of hucksters, but not as effective demand. buy for a ruble, sell for 10. but do not want to sell for a ruble .. go ... comrade ... go. small business was killed, only networks, magnets, crossroads, 5s, tapes and the like
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 March 2021 06: 28
              +7
              Quote: Doccor18
              But about milk, but soon we will cover all our own needs for milk, poultry and pork.

              Considering that practically all "chicken" is bought abroad?
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 18 March 2021 09: 18
                +5
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: Doccor18
                But about milk, but soon we will cover all our own needs for milk, poultry and pork.

                Considering that practically all "chicken" is bought abroad?

                I wrote only about the final product.
                And if you delve into agriculture, then everything is much worse than with the construction of the fleet ...
              2. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 19 March 2021 02: 30
                0
                I beg your pardon, Andrey, but where did your articles go? "A sad look into the future" was not without an interesting cycle ?!
            4. frog
              frog 18 March 2021 08: 56
              0
              But about milk, but soon we will cover all our own needs for milk, poultry and pork. But on the price tags in the store, all this "our" is almost like "someone else's". And our butter, and eggs, and apples, but this is almost not reflected in retail ...

              17.03 is declared an optimist day ??
            5. Artemion3
              Artemion3 18 March 2021 15: 26
              +1
              Bananas - 50 rubles, tomatoes - 180, I take bananas))
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 18 March 2021 18: 56
                0
                Quote: Artemion3
                Bananas - 50 rubles, tomatoes - 180, I take bananas))

                What did you think, in America it was different? Bananas 59 ¢ / lb, tomatoes $ 1.49 / lb. Moreover, bananas are brought from all sorts of Colombia and Ecuador, and tomatoes are either their own, or from bordering Mexico and Canada. The most delicious, by the way, are Canadian greenhouses.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. iouris
      iouris 17 March 2021 12: 03
      +4
      Between the hands it would still be nice to attach a well-equipped head. And then, as they say, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 17 March 2021 12: 31
        -6
        below the arms there are legs and oops ............................................ How will they live?
    4. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 17 March 2021 12: 24
      +1
      Quote: WHAT IS
      You can't execute.
      "Any Potentate who has a single land army has one hand, but which also has a fleet has both hands."
      Peter I

      Saying these words Peter | and had no idea about aviation.
      Therefore, the wisdom of Peter | does not shine today.
      1. Machito
        Machito 17 March 2021 13: 37
        +12
        Russia needs a fleet in order to push away from its borders hostile submarines with cruise and ballistic missiles, surface ships with cruise missiles, AUG, and to ensure the deployment of NSNF in patrol areas for a possible retaliatory strike. Airplanes will not be able to replace ships, as profile experts have repeatedly written about in the comments.
        Naval aviation is needed to support the operations of the fleet and to patrol the longest maritime borders. Today we do not have naval aviation, unlike the fleet. The military school for naval aviation pilots is closed (according to the VO commentators). What kind of naval aviation is the article talking about? About one that needs to be rebuilt, almost from scratch?
        Naval aviation is one of the most important components of the fleet. We need to formulate the tasks of the fleet, to comprehensively build a multifunctional fleet and, in particular, naval aviation.
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 17 March 2021 14: 37
          +2
          I agree. To begin with, clearly formulate the tasks that the fleet will solve, including naval aviation. Some of them lie on the surface, such as providing anti-mine and anti-submarine defense in the coastal zone and full cover for SSBNs at the exit from the bases. Some have to be formulated based on the country's foreign policy strategy, which at the moment also does not exist as such. Now we act according to circumstances, therefore, we give the initiative to the "partners". It doesn't have to be that way.

          Well, as soon as specific tasks in foreign policy appear, it will be clear what tasks are facing the Navy. And from them will already follow the strategy for the development of the fleet, including shipbuilding programs.
          1. Machito
            Machito 17 March 2021 17: 09
            +3
            So far, only a strategy for the development of the NSR is being observed, but the formulation of this strategy is not yet visible.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 March 2021 22: 03
          -5
          "Surface ships with cruise missiles, AUG" Coastal missile systems with hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles will cope with this task with a bang.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 17 March 2021 13: 50
        -3
        Quote: WHAT IS
        You can't execute.
        "Any Potentate who has a single land army has one hand, but which also has a fleet has both hands."
        Peter I

        Saying these words Peter | and had no idea about aviation.
        Therefore, the wisdom of Peter | does not shine today.

        +100500
        Peter's fleet is a coastal fleet. And the tasks were appropriate.

        Give Petya a Su-35 regiment (and even an Il-2) and he wouldn't even bother with any fleet.

        And Peter I said:

        "Any Potentate who has a single land army, has one hand, and who has AVIATION, has both hands." laughing
  2. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 17 March 2021 10: 11
    +11
    First of all, the fleet needs infrastructure, including dry docks. By 1143.1, the same 4 / 1991 were brought to the USSR Navy to a completely killed, incapable of combat, state due to the fact that not one of the ships did not even have a decent "wall" in the basing places and was constantly on the roads, killing the motor resource. In the USSR, there was not a single naval base where the ships in the parking lot would be supplied with everything required from the shore. The exception is Baltiysk-Pilau, well, so it was not built by the USSR.
    1. WIKI
      WIKI 17 March 2021 11: 18
      +3
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      In the USSR, there was not a single naval base where the ships in the parking lot would be supplied with everything required from the shore.
      You know the history disgustingly poorly.
      "logistics center (modest but tasteful)."
      Usually, the PMTO of the USSR Navy occupied an area of ​​fifty or more square kilometers and was designed to accommodate several thousand personnel. All this was complemented by a well-developed infrastructure with berths, a dock, a fuel storage, and an arsenal. The presence of ground transport and special equipment was obligatory. The security system of the PMTO base included boats and ships for the protection of the water area, a fortified perimeter and personnel of the Marine Corps with heavy weapons and armored vehicles. Optionally - an airfield with cover fighters, anti-submarine, reconnaissance and transport aircraft. Nokra, Ethiopia (1977 - 1991), Victoria, Seychelles. (1984 - 1990), Cam Ranh, Vietnam (1979 - 2002),
      - The naval base Cienfuegos and the communications center of the Navy "Surf" in the town of El Gabriel (Cuba);
      - VMB Rostock (GDR);
      - Navy Hodeidah (Yemen);
      - Alexandria and Marsa Matrouh (Egypt);
      - Tripoli and Tobruk (Libya);
      - Luanda (Angola);
      - Conakry (Guinea);
      - Bizerte and Sfax (Tunisia);
      - Tartus and Latakia (Syria); "
      https://topwar.ru/27392-set-zarubezhnyh-baz-vmf-sssr.html
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 17 March 2021 11: 34
        +14
        You are confusing. You do not understand what this is about. Communications should be laid at the parking lot: to provide ships with water, high pressure air, electricity, fuels and lubricants. None of this was in the Soviet navy. The heavy cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" constantly stands at the 35th shipyard, it has nowhere else to stand, it needs a berth for it, it needs a separate boiler room and a separate substation, a turbo-compressor shop, a large high crane on the berth, an entrance for at least large-sized wheeled vehicles, or even for railway
        1. WIKI
          WIKI 17 March 2021 11: 57
          -11%
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          All this was complemented by a developed infrastructure with berths, a dock, a fuel storage,

          Can you read? If you can, then give your examples, in addition to general phrases.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 12: 41
            +21
            Quote: WIKI
            Can you read?

            PMTO is one thing, the infrastructure for basing ships in the naval base is completely different
            All this was complemented by a well-developed infrastructure with berths, a dock, a fuel storage, and an arsenal. The presence of ground transport and special equipment was obligatory.

            That's right, because the PMTO was tied to providing ships with fuel, weapons, and maintenance up to docking. But the PMTO did not include the means of providing heat, VVD, el. energy, etc., as the respected Bashkirkhan says. From this, our TAVKR (and not only) were forced to wind up the resource of mechanisms even in the base.
            1. WIKI
              WIKI 17 March 2021 20: 13
              -3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              did not include heat supply,

              What do you mean by means of providing heat, and are they relevant for: Ethiopia, Seychelles, Cam Ranh, Vietnam, El Gabriel (Cuba), Hodeidah (Yemen), Marsa Matruh (Egypt), Tobruk (Libya), Luanda (Angola), Conakry (Guinea), Sfax (Tunisia), Latakia (Syria). And I think there were optimal options for heat supply for such areas. About electricity in my opinion you are in vain. From the same article: "Cam Ranh diesel power plant with a capacity of 24 MW to provide electricity to the garrison and adjacent Vietnamese villages;" About water: "6 wells to provide the PMTO and ships with fresh water." And on the rest of the PMTO, I think everything was also there. So your "respected Bashkirkhan" is wrong.
        2. frog
          frog 18 March 2021 09: 02
          +3
          The comrade does not confuse, the comrade persists wink He just did not bother to see what all of the above was in nature and what those who were there wrote about it. And no exam is to blame for this. repeat
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 17 March 2021 11: 40
      +3
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      In the USSR, there was not a single naval base where the ships in the parking lot would be supplied with everything required from the shore. Exception Baltiysk-Pilau,

      Kronstadt, Liepaja and Sevastopol have forgotten ...
      1. mik193
        mik193 17 March 2021 12: 12
        +11
        In most cases, it was: a 380 V cable from the shore, a fire hose with water and a telephone line - serve.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 47
          +4
          Quote: mik193
          cable 380 V from the shore, a fire hose with water and a telephone line - serve.

          Beer, vodka and girls were definitely not offered! laughing
          380 is differently better than an auxiliary to drive. Drinking was the same ..... steam only in the north .... although at the 44th berth in Sevastopol, steam was supplied to the TAVKRs.
          1. mik193
            mik193 17 March 2021 13: 00
            +4
            Well, from time to time "loss of power from the shore" (substation in 1957) and sat on the diesel generator. The couple was gone.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 17 March 2021 13: 31
              +2
              periodic "loss of power from the shore" is the normal state of Soviet power grids.
              Quote: mik193
              The couple was not there

              It's better than barrels ...
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 17 March 2021 12: 33
        +1
        in Seva what docks were and are there? .......................................... ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 51
          +4
          Quote: antivirus
          in Seva what docks were and are there ?.

          One on the North and two on the South sides .... you probably drank it?
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 17 March 2021 13: 56
            +2
            are they for Kuzi? or for Moscow? 8 thousand tons or .3.?
            BIV and ship repair. Never happened - will we have Norfolk and San Diego? there is nothing to build AB and other 1st rank.

            the dock itself needs hundreds of specialists - not military ones. and machine tools and cutters and other special.

            how things will go on Zvezda - they will see there.
            is it already "Sechin - the second Peter the First"?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 39
              +7
              Quote: antivirus
              are they for Kuzi? or for Moscow?

              Two for Moscow, one "Linkorovsky" ... I think Kuznetsov will fit in there.
              Quote: antivirus
              there is nothing to build AB and other 1st rank.

              Well, your credo "Down with the fleet, give the armored train" is known to me! wink
      3. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 19 March 2021 14: 17
        +1
        Quote: Serg65

        Kronstadt, Liepaja and Sevastopol

        hi By the way, yes, thanks for the clarification.
    3. YOUR
      YOUR 17 March 2021 12: 20
      +3
      Has anything changed for the better over the past 20 years? Or judging by the article, the situation is getting worse and worse?
      From my pole, I see that we have money for pipes and for palaces.
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 17 March 2021 14: 40
        -6
        Are you jealous that it is not your pipe and that palace?
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 14
    +3
    What's that not clear?
    Russia needs a balanced military ... just like any other country. Of course, depending on the current and future challenges facing her.
    Can we now make all "our" dreams come true ??? This is a question that is not easy to find an answer to ... opinions are different, Wishlist is different, the vision of the situation is different! And sho at the very top in their heads, I don’t want to guess.
    Hence, it turns out that ... but fig knows what it turns out.
    "Cool" huh? It seems that everything is clear, but figs knows what will happen!
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 17 March 2021 10: 45
      +10
      Russia needs a balanced military ... just like any other country.

      But no! I disagree! This phrase about "balanced Armed Forces" was invented by perestroika when they were breaking the Armed Forces of the USSR. 30 years have passed and the "balanced" forces have not yet been built - they do not meet the tasks assigned to them. The countries need balanced forces, the territories of which are simply not threatened with seizure from the outside! Such parade-operetta armies - that is what "balanced" forces are. Really belligerent states, whose armed forces do not get out of wars, do not have any "balanced" armed forces! - Look at the United States, at Israel, ... at Russia - there is no smell of balance there. And the author, in fact, correctly raises the question: either we have a mobile and powerful air force or a navy in the manner of the American, but with very mediocre capabilities.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 50
        0
        Quote: nespich
        But no! I disagree!

        How to argue with an expert who KNOWS what it is ... but he probably knows everything.
        1. nonsense
          nonsense 17 March 2021 10: 53
          +2
          nope, not everything. I don’t know how much vodka is now in our general store ... well, and I don’t know what there is in the heads (C) "at the very top" ... and I don’t drag it in microelectronics ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 59
            +3
            Selpo, this is completely from the past ...
            For the very top ... no, no, I can't even guess.
            In microelectronics ... but why is it complicated, donors are acceptors, zeroes are ones, plus or minus ... everything is simple when it is OWN !!! but with imposhnoy, there may be problems, especially when it is not even allowed to buy it!
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 17 March 2021 14: 01
          +2
          why argue?

          the policy of the Navy is determined by the amount - from the General Staff to the lobbyists of shipbuilding and metal, + electricity \ energy, + labor resources + science. and 17 more points - I don't know them.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 17 March 2021 14: 13
            +2
            Quote: antivirus
            why argue?

            Not at the State Council! You can argue.
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 17 March 2021 14: 41
              0
              outside the number factor - GDP growth.
              it is necessary to prepare for the worst - and curtailed the program from the USSR (with modernization). GDP grew in 00g and then everything was revised-slowed down. money is everything. we need money independent of the West. there may be less of them - but their own. how to reconcile with 140 million hrs less wages and pensions and the growth of the naval program?
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 17 March 2021 15: 25
                +2
                And when did we have to prepare for the best ???
                Not with this system.
                So they are alive and thank God, for some reason I don’t want to praise anyone else, although it is necessary to scold with the proviso that it could be worse.
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 17 March 2021 15: 42
                  -1
                  GDP growth not in the next two years - but in 10-15 years - how to maintain ships of the 1st rank in 2035?
                  perspectives are not danced on "10 pcs AB of 100 VI" ..
                  and what will happen in 2050?
                  modernization - where is the dock? what kind of diesel cables - and so on to change for what?
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 17 March 2021 12: 35
      -2
      33 years ago, helicopters in Afghanistan and convoys fired on the DShK from China .... the solution of security problems (including diplomacy) in Eurasia in all places. without queue 47 - fleet.
    3. NDR-791
      NDR-791 17 March 2021 12: 47
      +5
      Nobody offers to get rid of the Strategic Missile Forces because they "have not defeated anyone."
      And the situation with the naval forces is absolutely the same.

      opinions are different, Wishlist are different, the vision of the situation is different! And sho at the very top in their heads, I don’t want to guess.
      Half of the top ones do not know what to grab. Another knows for sure that the WB should be reduced to zero - "oil instead of guns !!!" (it is necessary to raise the rating). The result is support for the pants. The notorious "manual control" in everything. A nuclear submarine or a frigate has been built for more than one year, during this time priorities change, funds are redirected, everything is staked.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 17 March 2021 13: 16
        +1
        Quote: NDR-791
        Half of the top ones don't know ....... The other half knows for sure

        Chi will, chi bondage, all the same!
        We can even ascertain with a delay, and even know that something in advance ... is not real.
    4. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 17 March 2021 12: 47
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      Russia needs a balanced military

      Who would argue? But ... Let us ask ourselves a question ... Knowing our military doctrine, we can ask - why do we need an aircraft carrier? Are we going to "carry democracy", following the example of the United States, to other countries? In the event of a local military conflict near our borders, without an aircraft carrier in any way? For "flag demonstration" without an aircraft carrier, too, in any way? Everything should dance from military doctrine. Do you really need an aircraft carrier to protect itself? I am not saying anything, I am asking questions! And now - aviation. Can I use aviation to demonstrate my Self? Possessing what it is today? Can! Anywhere in the world? Yes! Which is cheaper, to build an aircraft carrier or an airfield with all the infrastructure? We, possessing such a territory, can project our power with the help of aviation anywhere in the world, if necessary. And protect yourself. Of course, I don't know, but it seems to me that aviation will cost less than aircraft carriers and cruisers.
      Questions, questions, questions.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 17 March 2021 13: 14
        +3
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Questions, questions, questions.

        We can pile up a bunch of questions, but those who are supposed to ... even if only to explain everything, do not go here, and they don’t want to know about us, in general.
        We start ourselves, and then ... nothing.
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 17 March 2021 13: 29
          +4
          Quote: rocket757
          those who have to ... even though everything would be explained, do not go here, and they do not want to know about us, in general.

          Why don't they know? They know, especially "those who need it" know bully ... And Klimov sends all kinds of inquiries to the ministries and headquarters, even sometimes he gets answers (unsubscriptions). The only sense is really no, as well as money for all the Wishlist.
      2. NDR-791
        NDR-791 17 March 2021 13: 25
        0
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Knowing our military doctrine, you can ask - why do we need an aircraft carrier? Are we going to "carry democracy", following the example of the United States, to other countries?

        In the thread about the fleet, a question asked a hundred times. The answer to it, if you get it, then MUST BE !!! AND EVERYTHING !!! And so that 10 at once !!! If you don't get an answer, then just a minus arrives. So here's a plus for you "for a bold question", otherwise they are now stuffing us here wassat
      3. Doccor18
        Doccor18 17 March 2021 14: 06
        +6
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk

        ... why do we need an aircraft carrier? Do you really need an aircraft carrier to protect itself?

        Can I use aviation? Possessing what it is today? Can! Anywhere in the world? Yes!

        Which is cheaper, to build an aircraft carrier or an airfield with all the infrastructure?

        ... but it seems to me that aviation will cost less than aircraft carriers and cruisers.

        Aviation, at a certain moment, showed that it is capable of much, very much ... Killed battleships ...
        For a very long time Soviet politicians were held captive by their own illusions about aircraft carriers, calling them "an instrument of aggression" by the imperialists. By the way, they called them correctly, but drew the wrong conclusions ... An aircraft carrier is an instrument. For him, there are tasks that the aircraft carrier is able to solve better and better than other "tools" ... At least in defense, at least in the offensive, and sometimes "show the flag" will not be superfluous ..
        Aviation can also demonstrate its capabilities. For example, 2 Tu-160s will be able to fly to Venezuela and bring a psychological rustle to Maduro's enemies ...
        Will they be able to fly to Vietnam, the Philippines, India in the event of a global conflict? Not. They won't. Will the aircraft carrier be able to reach the shores of each of these countries? Quite.
        An aircraft carrier is a very expensive and complex tool, built for expensive and very complex missions. And each state must decide for itself whether they need this instrument.

        Of course, the continental airfield will be cheaper. But is it as versatile as a floating one? Not.

        And a balanced approach to army building is important because when you need to "bang", there are Tu-160, Yars and Borei, when to bring the squadron of democrats to the senses - there are Yaseny and Gorshkov, when you need to reason with an overly belligerent neighbor - there is T-90 / Armata and Su-35/57 ...
        It is impossible to solve everything with aviation or the navy, but with aviation AND the navy - you can solve everything! The main thing is to know when to stop ...
    5. Ryusey
      Ryusey 17 March 2021 14: 41
      0
      It will never be like this, our enemies can afford to specialize: the United States - the navy, Europe - ground forces, etc., we cannot afford this, that's all.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 17 March 2021 10: 22
    +6
    We need a fleet, we need it!
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 17 March 2021 10: 59
      +3
      I agree. If there is water, then you need a fleet. Another thing is that he needs to be, maybe small in number, but of high quality.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 17 March 2021 18: 55
      0
      Quote: Alien From
      We need a fleet, we need it!

      Yes, no one argues with this, and I think that our military theorists have already rolled out to the top military leadership the concept of building the armed forces until 2050, where the ratio of various types of our strategic nuclear forces, including our Navy, is determined. Those who are engaged in the concept of the maritime component also presented their views until at least 2030-2035. where already inside the Navy they offer a different ratio of weapons, combat arms and promising developments.
      But I will never believe that those who write here on VO have an idea of ​​what is really reflected in these concepts, and therefore we can only guess on the coffee grounds, since a limited number of persons are allowed to such documents.
      Based on my experience, I can only assume that the naval forces will be forced to unify some of the weapons in order to reduce the cost of weapons. Such a program was carried out in the armed forces in 1994-1995, and then it was the only way to reduce the duplication of developments and optimize the production of serial products.
      Experts know what can be done in this direction now, but for example, it is obvious that drones for the fleet should be unified with those that are being developed in the interests of the ground forces. Obviously, a single hypersonic missile of the Navy is needed, which can be launched from an aircraft, ship and coastal batteries with a flight range of up to 2000 km. Another type of missile, but with a longer range, should already be unified with the Aerospace Forces, and this is also a promising direction for the development of missile technology. There are other areas of unification of weapons and military equipment of different types and branches of troops, and thanks to this, we can significantly reduce procurement costs, and this will give us the opportunity to allocate more money for promising developments.
      At least I think this approach is the most optimal, and not only for the Navy, but for all armed forces.
  5. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 17 March 2021 10: 23
    +5
    Infrastructure above all, it seems that everything has moved off the ground with the auxiliary fleet. To create an anti-mine and anti-PLO service. What's the point if we set up the ships and we can't leave the bases, and not a couple of factories are needed for the production of propulsion systems. The hull is no longer difficult to rivet, but here to saturate it with modern equipment! We need personnel in shipbuilding. Not a good trend, orders are few people.
  6. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 17 March 2021 10: 25
    +2
    The author actually described the Soviet Navy.
    Anti-submarine defense.
    Without fighter cover, submarine aviation is unstable, and it will not be able to search for SSBNs.
    Formation of expeditionary groups based on the current ship composition.
    Everything, this group comes out from under the umbrella of coastal aviation and becomes vulnerable to the enemy's armed forces. One to one late Soviet Navy.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 17 March 2021 10: 39
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      She will not be able to search for SSBNs.

      This is not the main task of the submarine.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 17 March 2021 10: 42
        +1
        Quote: Bez 310
        This is not the main task of the submarine.

        And what is the main one, to look for enemy SSNS and cover their SSBNs? Then the enemy SSBNs will frolic as they want.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 10: 43
          +17
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Then the enemy SSBNs will frolic as they want.

          They frolic in the waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, well, they can go to Mediterranean. Do not get them there with PLO aircraft
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 17 March 2021 10: 58
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            They frolic in the waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, well, they can go to Mediterranean. Do not get them there with PLO aircraft
            That is why our squadrons were there, but without air cover they were vulnerable, and so on ...
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 17 March 2021 11: 05
              +7
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              That is why our squadrons were there.

              What "squadrons" were in Tikhiy
              and the Indian Oceans? I don't remember already
              the old one has completely become ...
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 17 March 2021 11: 18
                -1
                Quote: Bez 310
                What "squadrons" were in Tikhiy
                and the Indian Oceans? I don't remember already
                the old one has completely become ..
                In the Pacific Ocean, the Pacific Fleet proper and in the Indian Ocean is about the same.
                The 8th "Indian" operational squadron of ships of the Navy (abbreviated: 8 OpEsk) is an operational formation (operational squadron) of ships and vessels of the USSR Navy, designed to solve combat missions in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf during the Cold War between the USSR
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 17 March 2021 11: 48
                +5
                Quote: Bez 310
                I don't remember already
                the old one has completely become ...

                Did you really serve in the naval aviation in your past life?
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 17 March 2021 12: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Did you really serve in the naval aviation in your past life?

                  It used to be ...
                  Why are you interested in this?
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 53
                    +4
                    Yes, I see that they were somehow connected with the sea, but I don't know about OpEsk ...
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 17 March 2021 13: 34
                      +5
                      Quote: Serg65
                      but I don't know about OpEsk ...

                      What, naval aviators should know
                      about all the naval formations? Not
                      I think ...
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 43
                        +3
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        What, naval aviators should know
                        about all the naval formations?

                        I don't know about you personally, but naval aviators are very well aware of it, especially the drivers of the TU-22m!
                      2. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 17 March 2021 15: 05
                        +5
                        Quote: Serg65
                        especially the drivers of the TU-22m!

                        What do you mean?
                        Me, the "driver of Tu-22m groups" never
                        not interested in the presence of a squadron in
                        Indian Ocean, and to fill our
                        tasks it did not affect.
                      3. Fan-fan
                        Fan-fan 17 March 2021 17: 30
                        +2
                        Bez310, please, if you served in the naval aviation, tell me what her main tasks are now and correct the author of the article or is he right about everything?
                      4. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 17 March 2021 18: 24
                        +9
                        Quote: Fan-Fan
                        naval aviation, then tell me what its main tasks are now

                        We have NO naval aviation now!
                        The main task of what is now considered
                        naval aviation - participation in the main military
                        maritime parade.
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 18 March 2021 12: 02
                      +2
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Me, "driver of Tu-22m groups"

                      what Sooo interesting!
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Me, the "driver of Tu-22m groups" never
                      not interested in the presence of a squadron in
                      Indian Ocean, and to fill our
                      tasks it did not affect

                      what Are you definitely a "group driver"? Why am I interested in ... then either the AUG attack by heterogeneous forces, or just fly around the airfield! By the way, did you fly from Severomorsk-3?
                    3. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 18 March 2021 13: 52
                      +4
                      Quote: Serg65
                      Sooo interesting!

                      What are you interesting in"?
                      What exactly do you want to know?
                      Everything that you are "sooo interested"
                      I've been talking for a long time. Personally for
                      you - I served in the MA Pacific Fleet, and as a child
                      lived in Severomorsk-1, and in his youth
                      flew from Umba.
                      And the attack on the real AVM came out
                      as part of the mrap. And around the airfield
                      flew and in the ocean. And the PLA regiment too
                      served. And how it was served on Cam Ranh, I
                      I know very well.
                      But I didn't know about the "Indian" squadron,
                      but on the quality of the tasks it is
                      did not affect at all. In short, here's to you:
                      https://t.me/moraviaciya
                    4. Serg65
                      Serg65 18 March 2021 14: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Everything that you are "sooo interested"
                      I've been talking for a long time.

                      My friend, from you only general words at the Wikipedia level!
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      And the attack on the real AVM came out
                      as part of the mrap

                      And what is real?
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      And how it was served on the Cam Ranh, I
                      I know very well.

                      If you know about Cam Ranh, then you should also know Beregovoy ...
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      on the quality of the tasks it is
                      did not affect at all

                      Those. wolves separately, sheep separately?
                    5. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 18 March 2021 14: 51
                      +4
                      Quote: Serg65
                      My friend, from you only general words at the Wikipedia level!

                      When did we manage to become friends?
                      Do you want me on the open source
                      talked about the tactics of using existing
                      aircraft Tu-22m3 and Tu-142MZ? You will not wait.
                      Quote: Serg65
                      And what is real?

                      The real one is American.
                      Quote: Serg65
                      Beregovoy should know.

                      So what?
                    6. Serg65
                      Serg65 18 March 2021 14: 59
                      +3
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Do not wait.

                      laughing good
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      So what?

                      Yes, nothing .... you remind me of someone on VO lol
                    7. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 18 March 2021 15: 11
                      +5
                      Quote: Serg65
                      you remind me of someone on VO

                      I am most like the Bez 310.
                      Well, just poured!
                    8. Serg65
                      Serg65 19 March 2021 08: 24
                      +4
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      I am most like the Bez 310.

                      what There are two more twins in one person and you will not believe it .. well, just the spitting image of Bez 310! laughing
                    9. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 19 March 2021 08: 34
                      +2
                      Quote: Serg65
                      There are two more twins in one person and you will not believe it .. well, just the spitting image of Bez 310!

                      Try to write in a simpler way, I don't always understand you.
                    10. Serg65
                      Serg65 19 March 2021 08: 49
                      +4
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      I don't always understand you

                      Yes, that's understandable! It is not clear how you are by group commanded!
                    11. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 19 March 2021 09: 13
                      +4
                      Quote: Serg65
                      It is not clear how you commanded the group!

                      The groups are commanded by the commanders, and the navigator of the group drive, and only occasionally command, well ... there .. when forming a volley, or during group work.
                  2. Serg65
                    Serg65 19 March 2021 08: 51
                    +4
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    Try to write in a simpler way, I don't always understand you.

                    Ah .. and yes .. in your past life in Afghanistan did not fight? Well, there in the Airborne Forces or in the Marine Corps?
                  3. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 19 March 2021 09: 18
                    +4
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Ah .. and yes .. in your past life in Afghanistan did not fight? Well, there in the Airborne Forces or in the Marine Corps?

                    Are you confused by something?
                    So ask a specific question that
                    are you stomping around the bush?
  • nonsense
    nonsense 17 March 2021 11: 14
    0
    and there was no sense in those "our squadrons" ... The detectability of these very American SSBNs tended to zero. But these squadrons ate fuel and lubricants heartily and developed the resources of the power plants ... The task assigned to them did not correspond to their capabilities. (Moreover, this was clear even BEFORE they began to design these Soviet BODs (ships are doves of peace) ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 12: 45
      +12
      Quote: nespich
      and there was no sense in those "our squadrons" ...

      And how it was :))))
      Quote: nespich
      the detectability of these very American SSBNs tended to zero.

      But 5 OPESK, in which case, had a good chance of "exchanging" for the 6th fleet, which significantly improved our strategic position in the theater.
      Quote: nespich
      But these squadrons ate fuel and lubricants heartily and developed the resources of the power plants ...

      But it is still unknown what is better for ships from the point of view of resource and combat training - standing in the North in the winter season (and there it is almost always winter), or a long stay in Mediterranean on the BS ...
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 54
      +5
      Quote: nespich
      there was no sense in those "our squadrons"

      Have you been to military service?
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 17 March 2021 14: 13
        0
        on the cruiser Aurora ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 29
          +4
          Quote: nespich
          on the cruiser Aurora ...

          Well, as I understand it, you didn’t find the pioneers?
          1. nonsense
            nonsense 17 March 2021 14: 30
            0
            wrong assumption.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 40
              +5
              what those. can you tie a tie?
      2. nonsense
        nonsense 17 March 2021 14: 50
        -4
        no, I haven't. I am generally land-based. Sapper. But how does this change the essence of the above? US and NATO nuclear submarines were practically not detected by all these Soviet squadrons .-- Will you argue with this statement? - It is not surprising that American nuclear submarines periodically climbed into the Soviet bays themselves, such as Vladivostok ... But the resources for the construction and operation of numerous Soviet anti-submarine ships were thrown up immeasurably ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 57
          +8
          Quote: nespich
          US and NATO nuclear submarines were practically not detected by all these Soviet squadrons

          Why do you think so?
          Quote: nespich
          It is not surprising that American nuclear submarines periodically climbed into Soviet bays such as Vladivostok.

          Which submarine and when?
          Quote: nespich
          But the resources for the construction and operation of numerous Soviet anti-submarine ships were thrown up immeasurably ...

          Much less than the development of virgin lands and the turning of Siberian rivers!
  • vvvjak
    vvvjak 17 March 2021 11: 31
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Do not get them there with PLO aircraft

    Do not get it. And in general, the idea of ​​using tactical aviation (only) to combat the "supastat" navy is not very good (for me). How much will the Su 35S "cover" - 1500-2000 km from the airfield. And how many planes, airfields, bases abroad, etc. do you need? And will it be much cheaper to maintain them, compared to a full-fledged Navy?
    Py.Sy. As we now say, "the feeling is not those", from the article
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 11: 57
      +5
      If you read the article carefully, you should have seen that the main thesis is to develop multipurpose naval aviationrather than exclusively tactical.
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 17 March 2021 12: 29
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        is the development of multipurpose naval aviation

        Well, so be it, what does it change? If the Russian Federation is not able (in the near future) to build a comparable navy with the NATO countries (from your article), why did you decide that this is possible in the field of aviation? Currently, the ratio is 1 to 4-5 and, if necessary, increasing the advantage for Western countries will not be difficult - their production potential is much higher. Not to mention the fact that NATO military bases around the Russian Federation already exist, and Russia has yet to build them. In no way I am not refuting the thesis about the need to develop naval aviation - this must be done in any case, but the fleet should not be "written off" either.
        1. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 13: 38
          +4
          I think you and I did not understand each other a little - I did not talk about the reduction of the fleet.

          Several times I separately indicated that the current ship composition must be retained, maintained, replaced and supplemented.

          The question is that at the moment its operational capabilities are practically invisible on a national scale - and the aviation component could fix this.
          1. vvvjak
            vvvjak 17 March 2021 13: 51
            +1
            Quote: Anjay V.
            I think you and I did not understand each other a little - I did not talk about reducing the fleet

            Well, how else to understand you if you directly declare - the Russian Navy is "a suitcase without a handle." As you know, "a suitcase without a handle is hard to carry and a pity to throw."
            Quote: Anjay V.
            The question is that at the moment its operational capabilities are practically invisible on a national scale - and the aviation component could fix this.

            at the moment maybe. But if the Russian Federation positions itself as a global world player, then the country should be able to ensure the protection of its interests (primarily economic) anywhere in the world. If we are talking about a "regional gas station" then yes
            1. Anzhey V.
              17 March 2021 14: 12
              +3
              And I thought that I had built the structure of the text quite logically, and an attempt to substantiate the "need" of the fleet in it is obvious)

              at the moment maybe. But if the Russian Federation positions itself as a global world player, then the country should be able to ensure the protection of its interests (primarily economic) anywhere in the world.


              One way or another, but military construction proceeds from current capabilities, not hypothetical ones - and political motivation is powerless here.
              1. vvvjak
                vvvjak 17 March 2021 16: 05
                +1
                Quote: Anjay V.
                One way or another, but military construction is based on current capabilities

                Well, so I mean it. At present, the fleet is already financed on a leftover basis, and you propose to sharply restore naval aviation. By what means? Yes, MA can significantly strengthen the Navy, but in no case will it replace the Navy and certainly will not solve the fleet problems described by Timokhin and Klimov. It's just that your article in the context of all the latest "naval adventures" on VO sounds like "well, his fleet with its problems, let's urgently develop MA," the card will fall. " This is purely my subjective opinion (of a person very far from the fleet). If something is wrong, then "sorry".
              2. Anzhey V.
                17 March 2021 16: 33
                +1
                Let's be frank, the fleet is not financed "residually" - huge funds are invested in its development, only there is no return on this.

                not having the physical ability to have sex with the queen, we will still use the services of a maid


                This phrase would be appropriate if I proposed the concept of creating a mosquito fleet. I propose to create multipurpose operational-tactical formations that can both provide effective active defense; I am emphasizing the creation of the fleet not as an independent superstructure (like, for example, Alexander - and such a task is simply unattainable), but as a means of strengthening the current forces (including ground and aviation).

                you are proposing to sharply restore naval aviation. By what means?


                Elimination of "rocket gunboat" programs, reduction of work on delivery vehicles for nuclear deterrent (including alternative ones like "Poseidon"), optimization of the current ship composition, reduction of work on projects that do not carry military expediency (nuclear destroyers), and so on ...

                Only the listed items are enough for a couple of air divisions with the appropriate infrastructure.
            2. bayard
              bayard 17 March 2021 19: 45
              +4
              Quote: Anjay V.
              One way or another, but military construction proceeds from current capabilities, not hypothetical ones - and political motivation is powerless here.

              And the current opportunities are now such that for the revival of Naval Aviation today it is necessary not only to build airplanes and restore airfields, but also to take flight and technical personnel for them somewhere, which means to prepare them.
              ... Time.
              And the specifics of naval aviation.
              But the job is necessary.
              Another thing is that the Su-30SM has already been selected for naval aviation, and not the Su-35S, and this is correct, because for flight over the sea, and even with shock functions, a second crew member is needed (highly desirable), so that one pilot and fights at small / medium distances, and the second is the navigator / weapons operator.
              But these aircraft, and even with the X-35 \ X-31, are only suitable for striking individual ships, which are without air cover. against AUG and KUG covered by aviation - NO. For the launch range will be no more than 150-200 km. , and with air cover it is impossible to break through to the launch line.
              And something more serious the Su-30 \ 35 is not capable of carrying.
              Therefore, I raised the question (and I understood that in the article you opposed me) about the creation of an MRA aircraft on the basis of the Su-34 to replace the Tu-22M3 (which has 10-15 years left to live), capable of carrying heavy anti-ship missiles of the class " Zircon "(airborne). And for this, its airframe must be slightly modified (following the example of the creation in the USA of the FВ-111 based on the F-111 and the MiG-35 based on the MiG-29) - by slightly lengthening and increasing the wing area. That will increase the internal volumes for fuel, and therefore the combat radius, and the payload.
              This will not be too difficult for designers, especially since new, more powerful engines will require new air intakes that can be borrowed from the Su-57. To revive the MPA, such aircraft will need at least 120 units (5 regiments of a two-squadron composition). But for the Aerospace Forces, such bombers will not be superfluous - to replace the Tu-22M3 Long-Range Aviation. So the industry can count on a batch of 200 - 300 pieces. And this is not enough.
              And this is much better and more rational (and cheaper) to resume the construction of the Tu-22M3M.
              For MRA, it is precisely the carriers of RANGE anti-ship missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of at least 1000 km are needed. from the launch site - out of reach of AUG fighters.
              Namely, with them - AUG, our naval aviation will have to fight in the first place. As well as with individual CD carriers.
              And the rest of the article is not bad, due attention is paid to AWACS aircraft, PLO aircraft, reconnaissance and target designation.

              And as for light aircraft carriers ... We will not be able to pull off a series of heavy nuclear ones, to build one or two is nonsense, there will not be much benefit. And the stake on the aircraft carriers of the air defense of medium VI is the optimal solution to the combat stability of the Fleet outside the zone of operation of its base aviation. But this is a medium / long-term perspective, the industry will be ready to take on such a task in 4 - 5 years, and if finances allow and there is will, then in another 7 years such a ship (the first) may appear in service. That is, not earlier than 12 years later.
              We still have to live to see that.
              But in the shortest possible time to solve the issues of the combat stability of the Fleet, at least in BMZ (up to 500 km from the coast), only the revival of the basic naval aviation will allow. On the Su-30SM, this choice has already been made and it is correct. Especially if in the near future its hybrid version with engines, on-board radar and avionics from the Su-35 appears (which is also expected, because the Indians have already ordered such an upgrade for their Su-30 fleet.
              And of course, you need to equip and develop the bases. Including counting on the arrival of new ships.
            3. Anzhey V.
              17 March 2021 20: 14
              0
              The Su-35S was generally cited as a "free example" of a multipurpose aircraft, on the basis of which it is possible to begin the formation of air regiments.

              Of course, the Su-30SM (which are already in service) are the ideological analogue of the Hornet and look much better.

              I do not deny need a full-fledged missile carrier - but this is work for the future, and I deliberately did not touch on this topic, because hypothetical options we have a cart and a small cart.

              I tried to substantiate the described approach as briefly and clearly (especially for “people not in the subject”), therefore I did not deal with specific consideration of aircraft models, the number of air regiments, promising areas of development, etc.
            4. ramzay21
              ramzay21 18 March 2021 10: 46
              0
              You very correctly raised the urgent need for modern AWACS and PLO aircraft. But don't you think that the A100 is a very expensive and wrong path?

              Now all produced IL 76 MD-90A go to VTA, and it is already redundant and expensive for the AWACS aircraft of our country. The most reasonable would be to use Tu 204 for this purpose. There are two dozen of them in storage right now, and this is a huge saving of money and time on the plane itself. The Tu 204 modification with enlarged fuel tanks has a range of 10 thousand km, and it will consume 2 times less fuel than the Il 76. Taking into account the fact that the equipment since the 80s, when the A50 was designed, has significantly lost in volume and weight, it will easily fit into Tu 204. Yes, and it can be produced on a slightly loaded KAPO now. It is also quite possible to build an PLO aircraft from it, and even such a project was.

              Timokhin is absolutely right about the fleet. We need a normal series of corvettes 20380/20385 and successful frigates 22350. The money for this can be taken by stopping the release of useless RTOs, now unnecessary UDCs, and of Poseidons with carriers.
            5. Anzhey V.
              18 March 2021 12: 14
              0
              Hello ramzay21!

              I propose the A-100 solely due to the fact that work is already underway on this project (albeit at a sluggish pace), and the aviation industry is already lobbying it to some extent.

              When proposing at least some potential paths of development, it is impossible not to take into account facts of this kind. Maybe in the future everything will change, but now we live in a time when the interests of the industrial oligarchy must also be taken into account in order to improve the country's defense capability.

              I got acquainted with the views of Alexander Timokhin, and, of course, one can agree with him in many ways. However, I do not share the idea of ​​large-scale construction of a surface fleet - it is certainly needed, but the current number of ships is sufficient to solve current operational and tactical tasks. We will not be able to carry out the operational-strategic ones in the next 20 years, even if today we begin to pour half of the defense budget into the fleet - and, most importantly, we do not have any serious justifications for this.
            6. bayard
              bayard 19 March 2021 00: 56
              0
              Quote: ramzay21
              The most reasonable would be to use Tu 204 for this purpose. There are two dozen of them in storage right now, and this is a huge saving of money and time on the plane itself.

              Yes, there was a message about this that a new AWACS could be built on the basis of the existing Tu-204 \ 214, and all the arguments were described - both the delays with the Il-76MD90A, and the presence of ready-made boards in the amount of 20 pcs. But things are still there ... in Australia.
              The planes are needed yesterday, but even the existing (existing) A-50s did not bother to drive everything through modernization to the level of A-50U.
              what prevented?
              Sabotage.
              Quote: ramzay21
              It is also quite possible to build an PLO aircraft from it, and even such a project was.

              So far, nothing has been heard either about the Novella-M, or the new buoys and other systems.
              Quote: ramzay21
              We need a normal 20380/20385 series of corvettes

              It has already been ordered, although not with the most optimal radar.
              Quote: ramzay21
              and successful frigates 22350

              There are already 10 of them. in the ranks (2) and under construction / order (6 + 2).
              From next year, most likely, the laying of pr. 22350M will begin.
              Quote: ramzay21
              Money for this can be taken by stopping the release of useless RTOs,

              The money has already been allocated for them.
              And most of the RTOs have already been built, but the hulls are without engines. Are waiting . You cannot throw it in the form - the money is spent.
              Quote: ramzay21
              unnecessary now UDC,

              And money has already been allocated for them.
              Quote: ramzay21
              well, and Poseidons with carriers.

              "Poseidons" could be without carriers - you can even launch from a barge, even from a pier - what a range.
        2. lucul
          lucul 18 March 2021 23: 11
          -3
          For MRA, it is precisely the carriers of RANGE anti-ship missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of at least 1000 km are needed. from the launch site - out of reach of AUG fighters

          Upgrade the GOS at Calibers to the level of the Tomahawk Block 5 and hang it on the Su-30SM. Here is the solution to the problem.
          The combat radius of the Su-30 SM is 1500 km, plus the Caliber has a range of 1600 km, for a total of 3 km of the range of destruction from our shores. Problems only with targeting. )))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 12: 46
    +8
    Quote: vvvjak
    Py.Sy. As we now say, "the feeling is not those", from the article

    Soon mine will be released on the same topic (already posted, but so far it is under moderation). Although there are also many controversial points
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 17 March 2021 14: 08
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Soon mine will be released on the same topic (already posted, but so far it is under moderation)

      I'm waiting, I'm glad you heard me. I saw the title of this article, I thought it was yours. I read it - something "did not go".
  • Serg65
    Serg65 17 March 2021 11: 47
    +6
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Do not get them there with PLO aircraft

    For this, full-fledged naval bases abroad are needed. Under the Union, only Cam Ranh responded to this, in Mediterranean not in Alexandria, not in Tartus, this did not work, although a lot of efforts were applied. Now in Syria, Tartus + Khmeimim seem to merge into one whole.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 11: 51
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    in the waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, well, they can go to Mediterranean

    why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean? we should not allow them around Kamchatka and in the north, and the Indians themselves will solve their problems without us,
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 12: 51
      +8
      Quote: vladimir1155
      why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean? we should not allow them around Kamchatka and in the north, and the Indians themselves will solve their problems without us,

      Dear grandfather, I understand that in your years it is difficult to remember everything, but the maximum range of the Trident D5 with a full combat load is 7 km. That is, almost from the middle of the Indian Ocean to Moscow. And with a reduced number of BBs, Trident flies 300 thousand km
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 20
        -9
        dear granddaughter .... then it's better to crown the Gulf of Mexico ... won't you be weak? 6 frigates then? finally return to reality from your blue dreams of controlling the Indian Ocean, first try at least the Barents Sea to control what
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 13: 25
          +5
          Quote: vladimir1155
          finally come back to reality from your blue dreams of controlling the Indian Ocean

          Dear grandfather, it looks like sclerosis is contagious, can you tell me in what specific commentary I wrote about the control of the Indian Ocean? laughing
          In response to
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Without fighter cover, submarine aviation is unstable, and it will not be able to search for SSBNs.

          I wrote
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          They frolic in the waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, well, they can go to Mediterranean. Do not get them there with PLO aircraft

          What psychostimulants did you use to deduce from this that I was going to control the Indian Ocean?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 56
            -1
            you wrote ... Dear grandfather, I understand that in your years it is difficult to remember everything, but the maximum range of the Trident D5 with a full combat load is 7 km. That is, almost from the middle of the Indian Ocean to Moscow. And with a reduced number of BBs, Trident flies 300 thousand km ... why did you write this? I thought to justify a Russian squadron of anti-aircraft missiles, in the Indian Ocean, if I'm sorry, I was mistaken, then explain to me the old why you gave me information about the possibility of an attack on the Russian Federation from the Indian Ocean? when the topic was just about opek?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 14: 49
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              why did you write this?

              In response to your
              Quote: vladimir1155
              we would not allow them around Kamchatka and in the north, and the Indians themselves will solve their problems without us

              SSBNs in the Indian are threatening us, and by no means only the Indians, which I brought to your attention.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              I thought to establish a Russian PLO squadron, in the Indian Ocean, if I'm sorry, I was mistaken,

              Admitting your mistakes is worth a lot. Your apology is accepted with respect (this time - I am writing without any malice)
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 39
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                SSBNs in the Indian are threatening us, and by no means only the Indians, which I brought to your attention.

                twisted
            2. Wilderness
              Wilderness 17 March 2021 17: 39
              +2
              From Honolulu to Vladivostok, about 6 thousand kilometers. And about 11 thousand to Moscow. And this is somewhere in the center of the Pacific Ocean (if Google is not lying). I think Andrey meant it.
              In general, behind the disputes about the range, such a funny thing has been forgotten as the flight time, which everyone is trying to reduce. Americans, at least for sure. The closer they get to the target, the more likely it is not only to disrupt the counter-counter strike, but also to carry out a disarming strike.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 17 March 2021 19: 06
                0
                Quote: Wilderness
                In general, behind the disputes about the range, such a funny thing has been forgotten as the flight time, which everyone is trying to reduce. Americans, at least for sure.

                Yes, it has not been forgotten by our strategists - it is because of this that we will develop submarine missile carriers in order to reduce the flight time to the continental United States.
                There are no other tasks for them, and it is this parameter that determines why we have not abandoned them, and will not give up until they come up with an even more advanced weapon.
                And the use of nuclear submarines as a platform for our strategic missiles is too costly and unreliable, and if they had not been able to covertly cruise in the ocean, we would have switched to the Strategic Missile Forces and long-range patrol aircraft long ago.
              2. Wilderness
                Wilderness 17 March 2021 19: 19
                +1
                And I meant the participants in the discussion. Not strategists. Too often thoughts slip here, they say, if something happens, we will shoot from the base, etc. And the need to move the threat away from its shore is also ignored.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 17 March 2021 13: 28
      -5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Dear grandfather, I understand that in your years it is difficult to remember everything, but the maximum range of the Trident D5 with a full combat load is 7 km. That is, almost from the middle of the Indian Ocean to Moscow.

      And what follows from your thoughtful refutation on a quite competently posed question?
      Quote: vladimir1155
      why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean?
      And nothing.
      After all, in fact, by giving the Trident's range, you yourself proved to everyone that chasing several nuclear submarines across the Pacific Ocean is too expensive from any point of view, if only because the Americans can choose the next patrol area in another ocean. And what will we do with our ships and infrastructure if they change their doctrine in the Indian Ocean region, and deploy some of the strategic bombers there, reducing the number of nuclear submarines on duty?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And with a reduced number of BBs, Trident flies 11,3 thousand km

      With such a range, they may not even enter the Indian Ocean - have you ever thought about it? And then what should we do with our ships and bases in that region?
      In general, if earlier the naval commanders did not really count money in the USSR, and their Wishlist was somehow realized, then where can I get money for another whim of Timokhin or someone else from his hop company dreaming of ocean battles, I can’t imagine.
      Well, Russia will not pull the waste that it used to be, which means you sit in the near zone and build submarine missile carriers for the first strike, and after it it will be like a card.
      I think this is our main maritime doctrine in the first half of the 21st century.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 13: 33
        +4
        Quote: ccsr
        After all, in fact, by giving the Trident's range, you yourself proved to everyone that chasing several nuclear submarines across the Pacific Ocean is too costly from any point of view.

        Dear writer, please learn to read. Where, WELL, WHERE did I write about the fact that we need to chase SSBNs in the Indian Ocean?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 17 March 2021 13: 45
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Where, WELL, WHERE did I write about the fact that we need to chase SSBNs in the Indian Ocean?

          Another author asked you a specific question - "why should we chase nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean", and you began to assert that the Trident range allows warheads to reach Moscow from there, thereby justifying the danger to our capital. Or are you in some other cunning way tried to convey your idea that the bases in the Indian Ocean, like our fleet located there, we do not need from the word at all, but I did not understand? Then I accept your reproach that the words about the flight range should be ignored and accepted as a simple meaningless set of words.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 14: 47
            +8
            Quote: ccsr
            Another author asked you a specific question - "why should we chase nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean", and you began to assert that the Trident range allows warheads to fly from there to Moscow

            Clear. I give a certificate. If I were to highlight
            Quote: vladimir1155
            why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean?

            And if I would answer this question, then your logic would be correct. But I have highlighted
            Quote: vladimir1155
            why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean? we would not allow them around Kamchatka and in the north, and the Indians themselves will solve their problems without us,

            That is, from Vladimir's text it follows that SSBNs in the Indian Ocean are not threatening us, but only the Indians are threatened, and let them deal with their problems themselves. In response to this, I gave the Trident range, showing that American SSBNs from the Indian Ocean threaten us as well.
            However, from the fact that SSBNs are threatening us from the Indian, it does not follow that we are obliged to catch them there.
            Quote: ccsr
            Or are you in some other cunning way tried to convey your idea that the bases in the Indian Ocean, like our fleet located there, we do not need from the word at all, but I did not understand?

            Our fleet has other tasks there. In general, so that you know, the tasks of the fleet are not limited to the search for enemy SSBNs, and a number of fleets have no such task at all.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 17 March 2021 18: 27
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In response to this, I gave the Trident range, showing that American SSBNs from the Indian Ocean threaten us as well.

              So they not only threaten from the Indian Ocean, but almost immediately, as they roll away from the quay walls. Therefore, it makes no sense at all to remember about the Indian Ocean, as well as about the fact that we have an interest there for our Navy.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Our fleet has other tasks there.

              And what are the tasks of our Navy in the Indian Ocean - is it possible in more detail?
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 19: 21
              +3
              Quote: ccsr
              Therefore, it makes no sense at all to remember about the Indian Ocean

              If a person swears that our PLO planes are not chasing American SSBNs, he has.
              Quote: ccsr
              And what are the tasks of our Navy in the Indian Ocean - is it possible in more detail?

              Well, generally speaking, the 8th OPESK in the USSR was perhaps the most combat formation in peacetime - the same Somali pirates had to be driven. Political support for India. In addition, the relatively small forces of the USSR Navy pulled off much larger American forces - their 7th fleet was much more powerful than our OPESK
            3. ccsr
              ccsr 18 March 2021 15: 40
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, generally speaking, the 8th OPESK in the USSR was, perhaps, the most combat formation in peacetime - the same Somali pirates had to be driven.

              Somali pirates as a threat to a nuclear country - yes, this is a "serious" reason to keep a squadron in the Indian Ocean. Do you know how most shipowners are now doing with this, without our squadrons?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Political support for India.

              Why on earth - they did not ask us about it and did not pay for the maintenance of our squadron.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              ... In addition, the relatively small forces of the USSR Navy pulled off much larger American forces - their 7th fleet was much more powerful than our OPESK

              The Americans could afford it, but our budget did not allow us - this is obvious.
              In general, there were no serious reasons for keeping our warships in the Indian Ocean before, and even more so now.
            4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 March 2021 16: 23
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              Somali pirates as a threat to a nuclear country - yes, this is a "serious" reason to keep a squadron in the Indian Ocean.

              As one of the reasons - why not?
              Quote: ccsr
              Do you know how now most shipowners do with this, without our squadrons?

              I know
              Quote: ccsr
              Why on earth - they did not ask us about it and did not pay for the maintenance of our squadron.

              When you greet a person, do you take money from him for it?
              Quote: ccsr
              The Americans could afford it, but our budget did not allow us - this is obvious.

              For you, yes. In fact, this is a completely erroneous statement.
              If a country is in need of a navy, it must drive its ships on ocean voyages, otherwise there will be no sense. This is experience for both commanders and crews. And if they have to be driven, then why not to the Indian Ocean?
              Quote: ccsr
              In general, there were no serious reasons for keeping our warships in the Indian Ocean before, and even more so now.

              You just do not consider these reasons significant. Well, the leadership of the USSR and the Russian Federation considered and considers differently
            5. ccsr
              ccsr 18 March 2021 17: 12
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              As one of the reasons - why not?

              Since when should we spend the military budget on the protection of commercial cargo? Let the shipowners pay for the protection of PMCs themselves and there will be no problems.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              When you greet a person, do you take money from him for it?

              This gesture is not worth a dime, so come up with a better excuse for our unwise spending.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In fact, this is a completely erroneous statement.
              If a country is in need of a navy, it must drive its ships on ocean voyages, otherwise there will be no sense.

              You have not proved the erroneousness of my statement, as well as the fact that our ships must necessarily be driven on ocean voyages, especially since we are not seizing foreign territories.
              And the nuclear submarine is enough for us for a nuclear war, the rest is all nonsense.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, the leadership of the USSR and the Russian Federation considered and considers differently

              Only you don’t need to tell me about the manuals - it considers the way military experts present the situation to it, and they can sometimes be mistaken, or simply do not understand what will follow. A classic example is Grachev's actions as defense minister, when he convinced Yeltsin that the Chechen issue could be easily and quickly resolved by force.
            6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 March 2021 09: 03
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              Since when should we spend the military budget on the protection of commercial cargo?

              Quote: ccsr
              This gesture is not worth a dime

              Quote: ccsr
              You have not proved the fallacy of my statement, as well as the fact that our ships must be driven on ocean voyages

              In principle, you don't need to drive. But then they will have to be driven in the near sea zone, so there is no difference. "At sea - at home!" - have you heard the saying? The ship will be ready only when it is regularly at sea, in motion. Yes, theoretically this can be achieved by forcing the ship to cut circles in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, say, without sending it to the Indian Ocean. But the consumption of resources for its maintenance will not decrease from this.
              You are simply not familiar with the concept of cost relevance. To maintain combat effectiveness, a ship needs to "wind" a certain number of running days, during which it will consume fuel and so on and so forth. Where exactly to do this - there is not much difference, that is, it is clear that certain exercises can be done only at the appropriate training grounds, but the ship does not have to constantly sit on the training ground. That is why the presence of our ships in the Indian Ocean does not require any special expenses from the Ministry of Defense.
              Yes, when our ships were attracted to constant duty / pursuit of pirates, it was wrong, because at that time there were very few ships on the move, and constant duty forced them to work beyond reason, for wear and tear. But from time to time nothing prevents them from being used there.
              In fact, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation bears only the costs of maintaining bases in Indian, but these costs, in general, are insignificant. And they allow us to represent our interests, which is politically useful.
              Quote: ccsr
              And the nuclear submarine is enough for us for a nuclear war, the rest is all nonsense.

              This statement is really nonsense.
              Quote: ccsr
              Only you don't need to tell me about the manuals - it considers the way military experts present the situation to it.

              You see, the leadership is a little bit better than yours is aware of what is useful in relation to the same India, and what is not. These are POLITICAL questions, and you manage to confuse them with the military. No question, our leadership is mistaken all the time, but you do not sound any evidence of the uselessness of the fleet in political terms. Wordless "all this is nonsense" - does not count as proof
            7. ccsr
              ccsr 19 March 2021 12: 06
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In principle, you don't need to drive. But then they will have to be driven in the near sea zone, so there is no difference.

              Large - at least saving resources, fuel and costs of calls to foreign ports.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              That is why the presence of our ships in the Indian Ocean does not require any special expenses from the Ministry of Defense.

              It only seems so to you, but in fact, costs are growing and very much, at least even in the procurement of food and water, I'm not talking about the rest.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In fact, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation bears only the costs of maintaining bases in Indian, but these costs, in general, are insignificant.

              Our interests are not there, which means that the bases are not needed. We now need one base - this is Cuba, and the rest is all doubtful.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              This statement is really nonsense.

              Prove the opposite with the example of the same missile cruiser "Moskva" - what is the use of it in the Black Sea, and even more so in a nuclear war.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You see, the leadership is a little bit better than yours is aware of what is useful in relation to the same India, and what is not. These are POLITICAL questions, and you manage to confuse them with the military.

              This is how we broke firewood in the USSR, when the military said that it was impossible to unite Germany without the West's guarantees of our security, and even more so it was impossible to cut our nuclear shield, but politicians always considered themselves smarter, so we still cannot clear it. foolishness that they have done. By the way, then our "glasses" of the Strategic Missile Forces were blown up - wouldn't they be useful now, after the appearance of US bases in Poland and Romania.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              No question, our leadership is mistaken all the time, but you do not sound any evidence of the uselessness of the fleet in political terms.

              Calculate budget spending, then you can understand what the dog is buried in.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 14: 02
    -4
    Quote: ccsr
    where to get the money now for another whim of Timokhin or someone else from his gop-company, dreaming of ocean battles, I can not imagine.
    Well, Russia will not pull the waste that it used to be, which means you sit in the near zone and build submarine missile carriers for the first strike, and after it it will be like a card.

    here it is true!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 17 March 2021 17: 48
      +2
      There is no truth here.
      and build submarine missile carriers for the first strike,
      Yes, these missile carriers without a cover fleet themselves will die first. Yes, and they wrote here more than once that SSBNs are not suitable for a first strike, they are needed as an important bargaining chip in the negotiations, and if their missile silos are empty, then no one will go to negotiations with us, but will finish us off with impunity. ICBMs are good for the first strike.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 20: 29
        -2
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        These missile carriers without a cover fleet themselves will die first.

        justify! or are these empty words, first find the black cat in the ocean
    3. bayard
      bayard 17 March 2021 20: 26
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      here it is true!

      Quote: vladimir1155
      which means you sit in the near zone and build submarine missile carriers for the first strike

      Why build submarine missile carriers for the FIRST strike? If it would be much more reliable, safer, and perhaps even cheaper, would it be possible to build silo-based or mobile-based ICBMs for this? In addition, all of them (ground) can be on alert in continuous mode, but on SSBNs - only during combat duty in the "bastion". True, there were experiences of combat duty in bases with "piercing" in the event of an enemy missile launch, but I'm not sure that naval strategic nuclear forces are more effective for the first strike than land ones. They are just for the second wave of retaliatory strike by the surviving forces ... But only those that will be in the sea will survive ... Moreover, if the enemy's MAPLs are not detected ahead of time and are not destroyed by the first "green whistle".
      It would be more rational to abandon NSNF altogether in favor of land-based ICBMs - they are better protected, in constant combat readiness and with better survivability.
      And all the Boreas should be upgraded to the Borei-K version under the Zircon and Caliber-M missile carriers (up to 112 on board, not counting the torpedo tubes ... where else + 10 pcs can be), and use as a SSGN for service in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean at 500 km. from enemy shores. Thus creating a REAL threat to the enemy's territory ... by non-strategic forces (not included in the limitation agreements) and thus balancing the threat to our territory from their ships with CD on board.
      And the surface forces of the Fleet, relieved of their duties to serve in the "bastions" (to protect the PLPRB), will be able to operate more actively in the World Ocean, creating operational stress for the enemy fleets far away from their shores.
      It seems to me that such a structural structure of the Fleet is much more rational.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 18 March 2021 15: 52
        -1
        Quote: bayard
        It would be more rational to abandon NSNF altogether in favor of land-based ICBMs - they are better protected, in constant combat readiness and with better survivability.

        And here is rationality, which I am not against, if naval strategic nuclear forces make it possible to reduce the flight time and sharply increase the number of attack directions with our ballistic missiles. That is why we will improve the submarine missile carriers, no matter how leaders like Timokhin grit their teeth, because this will also happen at the expense of the surface fleet.
        Quote: bayard
        And the surface forces of the Fleet, relieved of their duties to serve in the "bastions" (to protect the PLPRB), will be able to operate more actively in the World Ocean, creating operational stress for the enemy fleets far away from their shores.

        Just dream, the Americans will be frightened of our surface fleet, which they were not particularly afraid of before.
        Quote: bayard
        It seems to me that such a structural structure of the Fleet is much more rational.

        This is not in line with the realities that are highly dependent on our budget, so it's time to get rid of the illusion of "rationality".
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 March 2021 18: 25
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          naval strategic nuclear forces make it possible to reduce the flight time

          But this is a matter of minutes. After all, our SSBNs are deployed in the waters adjacent to us and have not entered the world's oceans for a long time. And the areas of their combat deployment have long been known and monitored by all the means available to the enemy.
          Quote: ccsr
          to dramatically increase the number of lines of attack with our ballistic missiles.

          Well, here, too, it does not hurt even sharply, mobile missile systems can be dispersed across the vastness of our Endless with no less success, but with greater security and operational readiness.
          Quote: ccsr
          That is why we will improve the submarine missile carriers, no matter how we grind our teeth.

          I don't know who grinds his teeth about this (I can't do that), but the likely enemy is probably only rubbing his hands, because even in the "protected bastions" American submarines feel quite at ease and in most cases track our SSBNs and keep them in "weapon tracking".
          In addition, no more than 25% of our missile carriers are constantly at sea, and the rest at this time are in the base. And they (those in the base) will not survive the first blow ... And whether they will have time to shoot from the pier ... is a big question. In addition, we have a terrible shortage of MAPLs - the old ones did not go for modernization and repairs in a timely manner (and now they do not have time), and the new ones were delayed in construction ... and they (Ash) are not fully MAPLs, these are classic SSGNs, which were planned as such under the Union. But really multi-purpose - hunters and guards of our SSBNs, we have to count on our fingers ... And combat-ready - on the fingers of one hand.
          And the diesels will not help out here - they are not suitable for free hunting, nor for escorting and guarding SSBNs. According to the speed and autonomy of the underwater course.
          And after all, no one is proposing to reduce the submarines themselves or plans for their construction. I just propose to think about and carefully calculate the real combat value of ICBMs on SSBNs in comparison with their land-based counterparts. And such a comparison will not be in favor of the marine component.
          And in terms of money, and the degree of operational readiness for the start, and the security in the bases and "bastions".
          And I also do not propose to cut / write off anything.
          If the correct (in my humble opinion) decision is made, the already laid down and ordered Borei-M are being completed according to the Borei-K version, and those that are already in service are up to medium repair and undergo the same modernization and rearmament.
          And the Bulava missiles can be converted into conventional ICBMs and deployed in the northern regions of the country on mobile or stationary carriers.
          As a result, we will not lose at all in the number of missiles, but in the degree of their operational readiness we will only win. For all of them, having acquired a land status, will carry out combat duty in a continuous mode ... in contrast to their current position and state of readiness.
          Moreover, the Dolphins available today do not have to be written off at the end of the resource either. After some repairs, they can be turned into stationary rocket batteries, because their missiles still have a very serious resource (in 2015, 200 pieces of new such missiles were ordered) and will be able to serve "at the pier" for an additional 15 years.
          But the total potential of our nuclear warheads capable of hitting the enemy's territory will dramatically increase due to the very Boreev-K, which, while on duty in a 500-kilometer zone from the enemy's coast, will keep him in much greater operational and psychological stress than today ...
          And fear is the best teacher for discipline and good manners.
          At the same time, the freed surface forces will not so much "scare" the United States in the open sea-okiyan, as will play the role of surface cover and a source of information coverage about the surface and air situation for the submarine forces. And so for target designation for their (submarine forces) missiles.
          And the flight time for the Zircons (which from next year are threatening to be put into service) will be much more interesting than even for ICBM warheads, if they strike the coastal infrastructure and targets in the depth of the territory up to 500 km. And to the entire depth of their territory, in the event of a strike by Caliber-M missiles, with a range of up to 4500 km. in nuclear design.
          In the case of combat deployment of 3 - 4 such SSGNs on a permanent basis (not counting the "Ash" with 50 cruise missiles on board), we will be able to provide a salvo of 336 - 448 cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in addition to the potential of strategic strategic nuclear forces. And in the presence of 2 - 3 "Ash" on duty, another + 100 - 150 CD with nuclear warheads.
          And the surface fleet will have to be on duty somewhere in the same place.
          All this will lead to the fact that, in addition to increasing the strike potential on enemy territory, we will draw back significant forces of the enemy fleet to counter our forward deployment forces.
          And the other part of the forces will be drawn by China, which is rapidly gaining sea power.
          And the world will have a balance of fear and opportunity.

          And the locking up of all the forces of our Fleet in coastal waters, in the "bastions", which are under fire, viewed and traversed by all of their MAPLs, will only lead to the degradation of the Fleet, the binding of forces and incomplete disclosure of the potential of our weapons.
          Quote: ccsr
          Just dream, the Americans will be frightened of our surface fleet, which they were not particularly afraid of before.

          Under Gorshkov in the 70s, they were definitely afraid.
          Because surface ships almost always accompanied SSGNs with powerful cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And until they found an antidote to our tactics, they had fear.
          Quote: ccsr
          so it's time to get rid of the illusion of "rationality".

          Rational thinking is sound thinking that allows you to find the best possible solution. Having eliminated rationality from our life ... only ... irrationality will remain ...
          And do we need it?
          The rationality of my proposal is that, thanks to relatively modest spending, we can dramatically increase the strike potential of the fleet. In addition to fully unlocking the potential of Bulava ICBMs when they are ground based, with better protection and the possibility of continuous combat alert, we acquire up to 1120 missile launchers with nuclear warheads on converted Boreys and release significant surface forces for missions in DM and OZ. This is a comprehensive solution to a number of tasks to strengthen the Navy and its role in deterring the enemy from rash decisions.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 18 March 2021 20: 08
          -1
          Quote: bayard
          But this is just a matter of minutes.

          And the count has long been going on for tens of seconds when there is a question of bringing teams to the table.
          Quote: bayard
          And the areas of their combat deployment have long been known and monitored by all the means available to the enemy.

          Well, don't give a damn about that - the main thing is that they can release at least half of their BC before they are destroyed.
          Quote: bayard
          , mobile missile systems can be dispersed across the vastness of our Endless with no less success,

          There will be no time for this, so it is practically impossible to implement. As soon as they begin to move, it is possible that a preemptive blow will be inflicted on us - there are not fools sitting there either.
          Quote: bayard
          American submarine submarines feel quite at ease and in most cases track our SSBNs and keep them in the "weapon tracking" mode.

          Even if our SSBNs are all destroyed, which I don’t believe in, they are still obliged to complete their task to the end. And we will destroy the United States without our SSBNs - this is the essence of our doctrine.
          Quote: bayard
          At the same time, the freed surface forces will not so much "scare" the United States in the open sea-okiyan, as will play the role of surface cover and a source of information coverage about the surface and air situation for the submarine forces.

          This is a naive assumption.
          Quote: bayard
          Under Gorshkov in the 70s, they were definitely afraid.

          They were afraid only of our heavy missiles of the Strategic Missile Forces and under Gorshkov.
          Quote: bayard
          The rationality of my proposal is that, thanks to relatively modest spending, we can dramatically increase the strike potential of the fleet.

          And you don't get modest expenses when the issue concerns the fleet - now the ships themselves, as a platform for missiles, cost much more than the missiles themselves, and their flight range makes it possible to do without sea delivery vehicles.
          Quote: bayard
          This is a comprehensive solution to a number of tasks to strengthen the Navy and its role in deterring the enemy from rash decisions.

          This is the reasoning of those who have no idea what such dreams cost our military budget.
        3. bayard
          bayard 18 March 2021 22: 13
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          And the count has long been going on for tens of seconds when there is a question of bringing teams to the table.

          You see? And what is the flight time for the Zircons from the Boreyev-K and Ash-M mines?
          Much less!
          And they will be able to hit the entire missile defense infrastructure from early warning missile systems to their bunch mines, to naval bases, command centers and combat aviation airfields. Clearing the way for the main forces along with the counteraction of the enemy's missile defense and air defense.
          Indeed, for the sake of this - to reduce the distance to the target and the time to defeat, and it is necessary to move our sea carriers to the enemy coast.
          And this is exactly what Putin was talking about, and even on the map they drew approximate locations for the deployment of our "Ash" in a 500-kilometer zone from both coasts of the United States. Another thing is that I propose to strengthen this forward deployment group at the expense of Boreyev-K, which Shoigu was going to lay a couple of years ago ... But for some reason he changed his mind and ordered two more Borey-A.
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          And the areas of their combat deployment have long been known and monitored by all the means available to the enemy.

          Well, don't give a damn about that - the main thing is that they can release at least half of their BC before they are destroyed.

          Yes, the fact of the matter is that they may not have time to launch a single one. After all, if tracking with a weapon is carried out, then the opening of the mine cover can be perceived as the beginning of an attack and our SSBN will be destroyed without having time to do anything.
          What if the enemy decides to strike first?
          Then this strike will be coordinated in time and simultaneously with the launch of their missiles, all our SSBNs on alert and located in bases will be attacked.
          It just so happened that our SSBNs do not have safe areas of combat deployment, and the enemy has more than enough MAPLs to keep an eye on each one on alert. And for outposts, we don't even have an MAPL - in the Pacific Fleet in general (!) ONE "Pike-B" for the entire fleet. And we do not have enough surface anti-submarine forces to protect the "bastions" ... and they will unmask the submariners ...
          Quote: ccsr
          Even if our SSBNs are all destroyed, which I don’t believe in, they are still obliged to complete their task to the end. And we will destroy the United States without our SSBNs - this is the essence of our doctrine.

          In the current situation, it is very likely that they will be destroyed by a surprise strike. But you yourself confirm my idea that all our hope and reliance is on ground-based ICBMs. And if so, then why bother with a garden with "bastions", an outfit of forces to guard them, if they cannot shoot back with all the rockets? If the survival rate after the first strike is extremely low? If gigantic funds are spent on such unreliable and ineffective means?
          It is not the means themselves that are ineffective, but the conditions in which they are located and serve do not give them a chance of even 30-50% triggering in the event of a sudden enemy attack.
          And if we take into account the deplorable state of the anti-torpedo weapons of our submarines ...?
          And plus to all this, they also pull off the lion's share of surface forces to protect themselves ...
          After all, the most primitive analysis of the situation shows that it is wiser to invest in ground carriers of ICBMs, they are much more reliable and protected ... simply by being in the depths of our territory. It's cheaper and more accurate that way.
          And by equipping the "Borei" KR and sending them to the enemy's shores together with the "Ash", we will achieve much more. And in the strike potential as a whole, and in the flight time, and in the fact that in this way we will pull the huge forces of the enemy fleets to their own shores.
          Then they will defend themselves.
          And the initiative will pass into our hands.
          And in the bastions, we will not be able to provide reliable cover for a very long time, because we have MAPL ... on our fingers. And all are old. The new ones are not even designed by anyone - the Husky-Laika promises to be no less monstrous, large, complex and expensive than the infamous Ash tree (at a cost like two Boreas, with 30 torpedoes versus 40 for Boreas) , and with 50 KR against 112 for "Borey-K".
          And after all "Borey-K" was already in the plans, but not instead of, but a plus to "Borey" and "Borey-A".
          And by making their composition homogeneous in armament and purpose, we will get a huge submarine fleet of SSGNs, up to 20 pieces in total. "Boreev-K" and "Ash-M". And this is not counting the already existing "Batons" 949 projects.
          Here it is the strength for the advanced deployment and containment of the aggressor along its own shores.
          Moreover, this does not require the laying of new submarines, but only by modernizing and completing the existing and already laid down to the Borei-K version.
          And the funds freed from the unnecessary and even harmful in our conditions "Husky-Laiki" should be directed to the development of a normal MAPL of moderate VI in the dimension of pr. 945, which will need about 20 - 24 pieces. And if we take into account that the cost of building "Borey" is approximately equal to the cost of building frigate 22350, then such a MAPL (in the dimension of 945 pr.) Will be equal to the cost of corvette 20380 or 20385.
          Or 4 (four) times cheaper than "Ash-M".
          Quote: ccsr
          They were afraid only of our heavy missiles of the Strategic Missile Forces and under Gorshkov.

          And our submarines with a BR on a boat off their shores.
          For there were a lot of them and they, in principle, could not track them all.
          In those days, when the USSR did not yet have ICBMs, or there were still too few, it was these submarines with ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and 2000 km. , spinning along the coast of the United States, created the threat that deterred American maniacs from "Shot-shot" and similar plans.
          And the Bulava ICBM can be deployed in Chukotka (where the base built for basing the Pioneers remained), the Kola Peninsula and the Northern Urals. Some can be used as "European strategic" - aiming at England and other NATO members from the depths of their territory.
          They will perfectly fly from our North to the USA even without submarines.
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          The rationality of my proposal is that, thanks to relatively modest spending, we can dramatically increase the strike potential of the fleet.

          And you don't get modest expenses when the issue concerns the fleet - now the ships themselves, as a platform for missiles, cost much more than the missiles themselves, and their flight range makes it possible to do without sea delivery vehicles.

          And again you confirm my theses. Why would an intercontinental missile need a sea, underwater, nuclear launch vehicle, and with all the infrastructure it relies on?
          If she perfectly achieves her goal when starting from the ground?
          Why the Americans do this is just understandable - they control not only their adjacent waters, but also practically the entire World Ocean, therefore they have freedom of maneuver with their strategic nuclear forces in any waters - the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian or Arctic oceans. They do not need to protect their "bastions", for their SSBNs there is no one to pose a threat to. Here and stealth, and freedom of maneuver, and survivability in the event of a sudden attack on them.
          Everything is completely different with us.
          But by pushing our attack SSGNs to their shores, we will break their entire paradigm.
          We will practically double our strike potential (the CD is not included in the agreements on the limitation of strategic nuclear forces), make our strike almost irresistible, pull together the forces of their fleet to their own shores, force them to rebuild the structure of the fleet and the composition of their weapons, and our SSGNs, being in patrol , will be able, among other things, to do and ... hunt for their SSBNs.
          Of course, for the constant deployment of such forces at the other end of the globe, our Navy will need a naval base in that region ... And they are planned to be deployed. Venezuela plans to open a naval base and an air force base by 2027. This is from open data about two years ago.
          That is, I am not inventing myself, such thoughts have been hovering in the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense for a long time, in general it is known about them. The raisin of my proposal is that by abandoning the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, we, without laying down new (above the existing plan) ships, dramatically increase the strike potential of a strategic nature (but without violating treaties), freeing up the forces of the surface fleet for services in the oceanic zone and finally getting the opportunity to collect strike forces of the Fleet into a fist in any area of ​​the oceans. At the same time, by significantly strengthening the Strategic Missile Forces of the ground-based Bulava ICBMs .... And by placing the Dolphins with their Sinevs and Liners as missile batteries at distant piers with power from the shore.

          You have the competence to appreciate the above. hi otherwise I would not have crumbled into beads.
        4. lucul
          lucul 18 March 2021 22: 49
          0
          than there is already the infamous "Ash" (at the cost of two "Boreas", with 30 torpedoes against 40 for "Borey", and with 50 KR against 112 for "Borey-K".

          So it is so, but Ash's diving depth is 120m greater than that of Borey (600m versus 480m), which is very critical for a submarine.
        5. bayard
          bayard 19 March 2021 00: 30
          0
          And "Komsomolets" dived to a depth of over a kilometer. but was it better, say, "Pike-B"?
          SSGNs do not have to have such a submersion depth, the enemy's depth is even less, but who can say that their MPSS are worse than ours?
          The question is the complexity, high cost and ultimate combat capabilities of the ship.
          So "Ash" has a regular propeller, and "Borey" has a water jet propulsion unit.
          And who has less acoustic signature now?
          At the "Boreus".
          Just compare the cost of "Ash" in over a billion dollars. with two Boreas-K for the same money.
          50 CR versus 224 CR.
          With less noise and a larger stock of torpedoes (10 pcs.).
          In addition, for several years the delayed delivery of "Kazan" (head "Ash-M") indicates that the high coefficient of novelty does not benefit such complex products. Ash has many problems to this day, and one of them is a fairly high acoustic signature. And the lack of anti-torpedo weapons.
        6. lucul
          lucul 19 March 2021 08: 53
          +1
          SSGNs do not have to have such a submersion depth, the enemy's depth is even less, but who can say that their MPSS are worse than ours?

          Seawolf has the same diving depth of 600m.
          So "Ash" has a regular propeller, and "Borey" has a water jet propulsion unit.

          Yeah, and a displacement of 25 tons versus 000 tons for Ash. The larger the sub, the greater the signal reflection.
          Just compare the cost of "Ash" in over a billion dollars. with two Boreas-K for the same money.
          50 CR versus 224 CR.

          You understand, the high price of Ash is not taken from the ceiling, all the data on the submarine is strictly classified, what is in the press, this can all be misleading. Ash is a direct competitor to Seawolf, with the same limiting performance characteristics, hence the price.
          And Borey has a relatively simple hull-platform for a large number of missiles, hence the price. His task is to shoot at the target and that's it, the fight against submarines is not his task - this is Ash's task, Ash must destroy everything he can reach.
          You understand - everyone knows how to count money, and if Ash were just an expensive toy, they would not even start building it.
        7. bayard
          bayard 19 March 2021 09: 39
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          Seawolf has the same diving depth of 600m.

          Borey has 480 meters, which is also quite a respectable characteristic. For SSGNs, not for MAPLs, which Ash is not.
          Quote: lucul

          Yeah, and a displacement of 25 tons versus 000 tons for Ash. The larger the sub, the greater the signal reflection.

          24 tons from Borey and 000 tons from Ash. And at this size, the response from the low frequency illumination will be equally good.
          Quote: lucul
          Ash's high price is not taken from the ceiling

          And the complexity is due. and novelty of design solutions.
          Here are just the price it has already caught up with "Virginia", but the budget of the Ministry of Defense still will not reach the budget of the Pentagon.
          Quote: lucul
          all data on the submarine is strictly classified, what is in the press, this all can be misleading

          Come on, work on "Ash" was started in the Soviet Union, later resumed. And this is not a MAPL, but quite a submarine, which was designed to replace and reinforce the project 949, but under the Onyx and Granat cruise missiles. In the Union, they never considered money for armaments, so they were only interested in technical characteristics and originality of design solutions. And when, after the revelry of the 90s (in fact, at the end of these) they decided to revive the defenses, then in addition to completing the construction of several Schuk-B and Batons stuck on the stocks, they decided to bring the Ash to mind ... and since there was no promising MAPL project in a ready-to-manufacture form, they decided to use a promising SSGN as an MAPL.
          With all the ensuing consequences.
          Quote: lucul
          money can count everything

          This is YES. yes
          Especially those involved in contracts.
          The Navy asked for a product of the 971 or 945 pr. Type as an MAPL, but the effective managers were relentless - we will build you "Ash ... 7 pieces (now up to a dozen) and be satisfied.
          And the fact that the boat is noisy, there is no anti-torpedo protection, the coefficient of novelty is extraordinary, the price is prohibitive ... no, it doesn't matter.
          The order and payment thereof is important.
          The programs of simultaneous construction of "Boreyev" and "Yasenei", having drawn the entire budget over to themselves, thwarted the programs of medium repairs and modernization of MAPL 971 and 945 pr. PLARK 949 pr. ... And what do we see in the RESULT?
          The deadlines for the delivery of the new "Boreev" and "Yasenei" have gone beyond the horizon, but the repairs and modernization of the existing MAPLs and PDARKs have been thwarted completely !!!
          At the Pacific Fleet today ONE (!!!) ...
          Just eat ONE MAPL pr. 971.
          AND EVERYTHING!
          And no "Yaseni-M", with all their expected capabilities, will change the situation.
          The fleet practically lost its multipurpose submarine forces. And if in the North it is still somehow possible to scrape together for the protection of SSBNs in the "bastions", then there is no longer any forces for hunting and for operations in the open seas. Especially at the Pacific Fleet.
          The MAPL is the workhorse of the Navy. there should be 2 - 3 times more of them than SSBNs. So that there is enough for the protection / escort of these, and for the fight against enemy submarines, and for operations off the enemy's shores.
          We can't do that NOW.
          Because MAPL almost disappeared as a class.
        8. ccsr
          ccsr 19 March 2021 12: 18
          0
          Quote: bayard
          The MAPL is the workhorse of the Navy. there should be 2 - 3 times more of them than SSBNs.

          It is interesting why such conclusions? Is someone from the General Staff of the Navy advising you, or have you already been familiarized with a promising weapons program?
          I don't know where you get such proportions from, but in my opinion even 1: 1 is not the best option for us, because this is too much. The optimal would be 60% and 40% in favor of strategic submarines, although I proceed only from the proposed nuclear war with the United States.
        9. bayard
          bayard 19 March 2021 13: 31
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          Is someone from the General Staff of the Navy advising you, or have you already been familiarized with a promising weapons program?

          Unfortunately, a promising program of weapons is known, albeit in general terms, and it does not yet include anything except "Husky-Laika". And its declared parameters - VI and the composition of weapons, roughly correspond to "Ash" (13 - 000 tons of VI), which, and not only me, I consider a mistake. The already laid "Ash" is quite enough. But we need MAPLs - a smaller VI and not so sophisticated. If it will be MAPL VI 14 - 000 tons, with torpedo armament and cruise missiles in torpedo tubes, this will be exactly what is required. At a price they will be like a modern corvette 4 \ 500, which is also quite good and affordable for the budget.
          If today we are concerned with the preparation of the project, then it will be possible to start the bookmarks exactly by the time the existing programs for the construction of the Borey SSBN and the Yasen SSGN are completed, and the production capacity will be free.
          In any case, this is already a distant prospect, and in the coming years you can rely only on the modernized old MAPLs of pr. 971, and if you are very lucky, 2 - 4 pr. 945. This is not much, but it will help to intercept until better times.
          Quote: ccsr
          I don't know where you get such proportions from, but in my opinion even 1: 1 is not the best option for us, because this is too much. The optimal would be 60% and 40% in favor of strategic submarines,

          If this is the case (and at the moment it is even worse), then the MAPL will not be enough even to protect SSBNs in the "bastions", not to mention independent operations on communications and off the enemy's coast.
          And these proportions have long been known, calculated and adhered to at all times by both the USSR Navy and the US Navy. on the basis that each SSBN is assigned an MAPL for escort and protection, and the rest are engaged in hunting enemy SSBNs, work on communications and on enemy shores (especially when the "Granat" missile launcher appeared in their armament.
          There is a sufficient amount of materials on this topic, not at all of an artistic content.
          And the fact that in the Russian Navy there was such a bias to the detriment (and in the future - a complete exception due to the lack of appropriate ROC) MAPLs are the result of the actions of both the "agents of influence" of the enemy, and the domestic lobby from the military-industrial complex, which is beneficial to build large and expensive submarines nomenclature.
          Capitalism. request
          Including this was influenced by the acquaintance with the work and communication with Klimov, who at one time served in the department of advanced developments at the General Staff of the Navy.
          And a nuclear war with the United States will not end with one exchange of ICBM strikes. And tools will be needed to continue.

          And I ask you to pay attention, I always link all my considerations and proposals with the financial and production capabilities of our state and industry.
          What I have outlined in the comments above is, as a rule, not additional costs, but a regrouping of forces and means to achieve one goal - to strengthen and optimize (make as efficient as possible) the combat and strike capabilities of the Fleet and the Armed Forces as a whole.
          And rejection of the flawed and passive doctrine - a dull defense in the bastions, is precisely the way to achieve this.
          hi
        10. ccsr
          ccsr 19 March 2021 13: 55
          -1
          Quote: bayard
          And these proportions have long been known, calculated and adhered to at all times and the Soviet Navy,

          These times have passed, forget about them, and rely only on our current capabilities. Then you will understand what we need for the war with the United States, and everything else only after we decide
          this main task.
          Quote: bayard
          Including this was influenced by the acquaintance with the work and communication with Klimov, who at one time served in the department of advanced developments at the General Staff of the Navy.

          Can someone confirm this, or did you see it in his personal file? Why did he leave there - weren't they interested by chance?

          Quote: bayard
          And a nuclear war with the United States will not end with one exchange of ICBM strikes. And tools will be needed to continue.

          Did you learn this from Klimov? It is unlikely that he then served in the General Staff.
          Quote: bayard
          And rejection of the flawed and passive doctrine - a dull defense in the bastions, is precisely the way to achieve this.

          I do not believe in this whim, and I do not advise you either - do not risk your reputation, otherwise they will look at you as Klimov.
        11. bayard
          bayard 19 March 2021 17: 06
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          These times have passed, forget about them, and rely only on our current capabilities.

          So all the support is done on them. Shoigu himself stated that after the Boreev-A series, the Boreev-K series of 2 to 4 units will be laid. minimum. And since I spoke for this a little earlier, I took the news ... with satisfaction.
          True, later the Ministry of Defense reported that instead of the two Boreyev-Ks planned for the laying down, two more Borey-As would be laid. It was not reported about the abandonment of the plans for Boreyam-K.
          So the idea of ​​creating a SSGN-arsenal is not from the ceiling, but my opinion is that it is necessary to move to a more active doctrine, and for this to re-qualify all Boreis as carriers of the CD, and leave ICBMs on land. The total number of strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs) will remain, their operational readiness and combat stability will increase, and their former delivery vehicles will start serving not in "bastions," but off the coast of a potential enemy. This is essentially the development of Shoigu's ideas ... so to speak, a more complete disclosure of his plan repeat bully And what, the bosses like it when their brilliant thoughts suggest / remind them. smile
          The demand for MAPL of moderate VI is known, but the industry is still busy with current orders. Let him finish them. And the MAPL project in dimension 945 needs to be prepared. Moreover, there are developments from the late Soviet period - then the project was almost ready and even a full-size mock-up of such an MAPL was completed ... but the reactor was not yet ready for it. Therefore, when they realized themselves in the late 90s, they decided instead of two projects (this and Ash) to launch only Ash, as a "universal" one.
          The calculations did not come true.
          There are almost no MAPLs left, and those that are being repaired and modernized will last for another 15 years.
          And then ?
          Therefore, it is just time to start working on the real MAPL, and not on the new "Ash".
          While they are preparing the project, they will finish the current ones (Borei and Ash) and it will be possible to calmly deal with a series of new MAPLs at all the vacated capacities.
          So everything is consistent and not to the detriment of the military-industrial complex.
          On the contrary - a new program - new orders. And the series should be decent.
          By the way, if the "Borei" are still retrained into SSGNs, MAPLs can be built in smaller quantities than I announced before. You can limit yourself to a series of 12 - 20 pieces.
          Without rutting and crunching, calmly and measuredly. but rhythmically.
          By the way, the Boreyev-A modernization program in Borei-K may also be of interest to the industry. This upgrade is best done during a medium repair.
          So everyone will be in business - the Fleet with ships (PLA), and the industry with orders.
          Quote: ccsr
          what we need for a war with the USA,

          Stability of strategic nuclear forces and ensuring the most powerful strike against enemy territory.
          The proposed program allows you to do this in an acceptable time (terms), for reasonable money, without losing combat readiness at the time of such a program, and will provide "a pistol at the enemy's temple," as Admiral Gorshkov said. By at least doubling our strike potential against enemy territory without violating treaties.
          Quote: ccsr
          Why did he leave there - weren't they interested by chance?

          As far as I heard (and I considered it unethical to ask) he "left" from there. Which, in general, is not surprising.
          Then the problem "There will be no war" was solved.
          Likewise, many "left". As a rule, the best specialists.
          but apparently that was the task. request
          Quote: ccsr
          I don’t believe in this whim, and I don’t advise you either.

          But Putin and Shoigu believe.
          Only they want to place in the advanced deployment areas only "Ash" and separately laid "Borei-K", and I DEVELOPED their thought and brought it to logical perfection ... as they intended. yes They'll just remember and make it right. bully
        12. ccsr
          ccsr 19 March 2021 19: 12
          0
          Quote: bayard
          and for this to re-qualify all the Boreis as carriers of the CD, and leave ICBMs on land.

          Such a decision is not of great intelligence - it is obvious.
          Quote: bayard
          By the way, the Boreyev-A modernization program in Borei-K may also be of interest to the industry. This upgrade is best done during a medium repair.

          No, such repairs cannot be carried out in the middle, because it would be unwise.
          Quote: bayard
          As far as I heard (and I considered it unethical to ask) he "left" from there. Which, in general, is not surprising.

          This is usually done when they see an unprepared officer, whose outlook has not risen to the level of the position to which he was appointed.
          Quote: bayard
          But Putin and Shoigu believe.

          I don’t think - some just don’t know how to defend their position, and then they blame the leaders.
          Quote: bayard
          and I DEVELOPED their thought and brought it to logical perfection ... as they intended.

          As I understand it, you have already begun to understand these issues better than the Chief of the Main Staff of the Navy. Why then do you need Klimov with his jerks?
        13. bayard
          bayard 19 March 2021 21: 34
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Such a decision is not of great intelligence - it is obvious.

          It just so happened that one of my programs saved the country's oil industry from collapse back in 1992 (summer). Moreover, later it was copied, albeit in a pirate manner, by Gazprom. And it has worked successfully for many years.
          The participants of that analytical group of "brainstorming" at the ministry, later often cited this program as an example of the genius of their teacher (a good friend of mine) - the leader of this group, through whom this program was proposed.
          There was another program that was supposed to take first place in the competition of Professor Leontiev (author of "Japanese economic miracle and a number of other economic miracles) on the topic" How to make the ruble convertible. "I simply did not send that work. But then I voiced it (through a couple of years) among those who organized this competition ... This is their opinion.Among them there are very famous people who became known as the oligarchs of the first wave ... now disgraced and on the run. request but then they were still engaged in science ... And they were preparing for privatization ...
          So I don't care what topics to talk about or what problems to solve - macroeconomics, finance, monetary policy or military affairs ...
          But now this topic is interesting to me.
          I'm too lazy to call the Administration or go out to the commander-in-chief through friends, I'm not a public person, it's easier and more pleasant for me to start my ideas tangentially. And implement it through someone else's authorship. But what I write is not stupidity and not a whim of an outsider ... It's more of a game.
          Quote: ccsr
          No, such repairs cannot be carried out in the middle, because it would be unwise.

          Conclusion for modernization is very often combined with a medium repair. This does not affect combat readiness, it combines two processes and the ship comes out of such repairs with modernization in an updated form and with new qualities. Usually, medium repairs are carried out after 10 years of operation (if everything is according to plan). This can be done with the "Boreas" - those that are already in service or the final stage of completion, and freshly laid ones can be completed already in the SSGN version.
          Quote: ccsr
          This is usually done when they see an unprepared officer, whose outlook has not risen to the level of the position to which he was appointed.

          I have the opposite opinion. Moreover, I know other excellent specialists in their field, with whom they did the same in the "Serdyukovskaya reform" - these people were the best specialists in their kind of troops, they were developing an automated control system for interspecific interaction on the scale of the district / front (Fleet, Air Defense, Aviation , Land and Border Troops).
          And they did it.
          And the topic was closed (although the ACS works to this day as a backup).
          And people are dismissed from the service.
          It was a massive phenomenon, it is strange that you do not know this.
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          But Putin and Shoigu believe.

          I don’t think - some just don’t know how to defend their position, and then they blame the leaders.

          It's never too late to correct your mistakes, even for leaders. Especially when you are given a ready-made concept in your hands.
          They were entrusted with a serious matter, in a serious time, with serious goals.
          Not vaccinations and other fancy stuff.
          And to create a new center of concentration of management on the basis of Russia.
          They received help and support.
          And it continues to turn out.
          Quote: ccsr

          As I understand it, you have already begun to understand these issues better than the Chief of the Main Staff of the Navy. Why then do you need Klimov with his jerks?

          I would call it a hobby.
        14. ccsr
          ccsr 20 March 2021 17: 17
          0
          Quote: bayard
          I find it easier and more pleasant to start my ideas tangentially.

          Wondering how you can do this with VO? Do you seriously believe that some of the high-level military professionals read the "revelations" here? Don't be ridiculous, they already have enough of their own materials, so they have no time for fiction.
          Quote: bayard
          Conclusion for modernization is very often combined with a medium repair.

          Well, you cannot do this with an average repair - for this there are major repairs, when you can do this at large enterprises. Keep in mind that according to Soviet military science and orders of the Ministry of Defense, medium repairs are carried out by the forces of military units and repair structures of the district (fleet), and I do not think that now something has changed much in this. But at the shipyards of civilian departments, modernization should be carried out during the overhaul - they are better adapted for this.
          Quote: bayard
          with whom they did the same in the "Serdyukovskaya reform" -

          This is not a typical situation for the Ministry of Defense, and its appointment pursued other goals - both Yeltsin and Putin were afraid of hidden opposition in the military environment, if only because the army was in the first place among all power structures in terms of public confidence. And this worries any ruler - remember the fate of Akhromeev.
          Quote: bayard
          And to create a new center of concentration of management on the basis of Russia.

          Intergalactic?
          Quote: bayard
          I would call it a hobby.

          And Klimov seriously believes that his professional knowledge is somewhere at their level ...
        15. bayard
          bayard 20 March 2021 22: 32
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Do you seriously believe that some of the high-level military professionals read the "revelations" here?

          Someone does not read anything at all.
          And someone in the service is supposed to.
          But they will read it for sure.
          About some I even know who ... but this is from the opposite camp.
          And we still remember some of these high-level professionals as captains / majors ...
          Quote: ccsr
          Well, you cannot do this with an average repair - for this there are major repairs,

          Yes, that's not what I meant. Each ship has its own service life until the average repair, when its term comes, the ship is taken out for repair. It is during this period that the modernization should be carried out, combining it with the scheduled repair of the ship. Usually this period comes after 10 years of service.
          That is exactly how - during the middle repair, they planned to modernize the entire fleet of BOD 1155 and all Sarychs, with equipping them with vertical launch units (at the Sarychs - in the place of the stern tower) for the Onyx and Granat missile launchers ... the end of the Soviet era was planned ... Since the beginning of the 90s ... but did not grow together.
          The point is to carry out the modernization of "Boreyev" after 10 years of service, as planned. And those that are still in the initial and middle stages of construction should be completed in the SSGN version. This is not a simple and not fast process, it will take about 10 years. During the same time, launchers, bases or mobile carriers for the Bulava ICBMs are needed. In no case should combat readiness suffer, and all missiles should serve their entire life on alert, and not in warehouses.
          But thanks to such modernization, the Fleet will become a truly flexible, multipurpose and offensive instrument of global politics.
          In the near future, Russia will cease to be just a "regional power", because the integration processes, which have stalled since 2014, will receive a new impetus from May - Iran's accession to the EAEU. And therefore the CSTO. The post-Soviet space must be reunited. Rally around Russia. Without this, the fragments of the Empire will not survive.
          and the new Empire (Union) needs a powerful Army (the Russian Army will become the core) and the Navy.
          Real Fleet.
          Capable of ensuring the safety of navigation of the Union State.
          This is not to sit on the defensive. This is the ability to deploy our forces in any region of interest to us, in any water area. And this is not throwing hats, it is so necessary for business, for safe trade, for protecting investments, for the safety of one's own, friends, members of the Union State.
          Therefore, there will be money for this.
          They are still there.
          But you need to do everything wisely.
          Quote: ccsr
          This is not a typical situation for the Department of Defense.

          At that time it was pretty typical. We got rid of the "scoop" (and that was the task). There was a struggle for loyalty. Therefore, everything in it was thrown out with the water.

          Quote: ccsr
          remember the fate of Akhromeev.

          I also remember Rokhlin's fate.
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          And to create a new center of concentration of management on the basis of Russia.

          Intergalactic?

          To begin with, more modestly - on a planetary scale.
          And there, as it goes.
          Quote: ccsr
          And Klimov seriously believes that his professional knowledge is somewhere at their level ...

          I think that even higher than some - it is not the stripes of the mind that add, and not the stars of knowledge.
          His outlook and awareness of a good admiral ... But which admiral would like that?
          But the fact of the matter is that suppressing talent with a stripe is the lot of mediocre people.
          Stalin gathered around himself the smartest people, geniuses ... But at the same time, he was not at all lost among them by intellect. For he himself was a Genius. And it is they who are geniuses in all branches of science, technology, art, government, they considered him as such - a genius.
          But such people will be born once in a hundred years.
          Or less often.
          And everyone can call talent mediocrity ... only this will characterize just that very - "everyone".
        16. ccsr
          ccsr 21 March 2021 10: 48
          0
          Quote: bayard
          But they will read it for sure.

          Do not flatter yourself - professionals read completely different materials, including information materials of the GRU, where a qualified assessment of the future of the fleets of different countries is given.

          Quote: bayard
          Each ship has its own service life until the average repair, when its term comes, the ship is taken out for repair.

          Is it not the development of a resource that is primarily guided by? The term is used only if during this time the repair has not approached the resource.

          Quote: bayard
          Russia will soon cease to be just a "regional power"

          She never was, even in the days of the drunk Yeltsin - do not believe the propaganda cliches.
          Quote: bayard
          Capable of ensuring the safety of navigation of the Union State.

          When was the last time our civilian ships were attacked or captured, besides pirate stories? There is no need to escalate the situation, this is not an argument.
          Quote: bayard
          I think that even higher than some - it is not the stripes of the mind that add, and not the stars of knowledge.

          They do not have bad consultants, so better evaluate their environment, and as I understand it, some people really don't like it, which is why paid agitators like Timokhin or dissatisfied with the service like Klimov appear.


          Quote: bayard
          he was considered as such - a genius.
          But such people will be born once in a hundred years.

          Until such a thing appeared, so be content with what you have, and do not think that even if he appears, he will become the head of state.
        17. bayard
          bayard 21 March 2021 15: 23
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Do not flatter yourself - professionals read completely different materials, including information materials of the GRU, where a qualified assessment of the future of the fleets of different countries is given.

          In the fall of Ahura-Mazda, everyone involved in the compilation of these opuses, with their wisdom ...
          But the plans for naval construction in a number of areas testify that the Wisdom of God is far from many of them.
          Do you think this is unprofessionalism?
          Or something less pleasant than possible?
          We will not go into more details, they themselves know what the matter is.

          Quote: ccsr
          Is it not the development of a resource that is primarily guided by? The term is used only if during this time the repair has not approached the resource.

          Are we talking about a standard situation, or linking modernization plans to the most optimal case?
          So for this case, the most optimal linking of the average repair to the modernization.
          Or vice versa .
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          Russia will soon cease to be just a "regional power"

          She never was, even in the days of the drunk Yeltsin - do not believe the propaganda cliches.

          To want, to seem, to remain, or to BE (to become again) - things are still different.
          Russia has not pursued global politics for the last 30 years.
          She "played", tried, but did not ... With all due respect to the Fatherland.
          Without sovereignty, one can only play the role of the left hand in a large playing of one pianist.
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          Capable of ensuring the safety of navigation of the Union State.

          When was the last time our civilian ships were attacked or captured, besides pirate stories? There is no need to escalate the situation, this is not an argument.

          Remind me of how England intercepted our military supplies for Syria on civilian ships?
          And so brazenly that they had to carry cargo by landing ships, which are only named "big".
          Or do you want to start building the Fleet only when trade communications are blocked for us?
          Sleighs are prepared in summer, so as not to be without them in winter.
          Or do you think there will be no winter?
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: bayard
          I think that even higher than some - it is not the stripes of the mind that add, and not the stars of knowledge.

          They do not have bad consultants, so better evaluate their environment, and as I understand it, some people really don't like it, which is why paid agitators like Timokhin or dissatisfied with the service like Klimov appear.

          There is a hole in every specialist (remember the fate of the former head of the Pacific Fleet's intelligence? I met the news of his fate together with friends of his family) and professionalism does not always mean conscientiousness and responsibility (this is me about the current ones). Otherwise, we would not have witnessed such amazing results of their labors.
          I repeat - today is the time to collect stones.
          Quote: ccsr

          Until there are such, so be content with what you have,

          They have a lot to do right and correct mistakes.
          Quote: ccsr
          do not think that even if he appears, he will become the head of state.

          The Lord's ways are inscrutable.
        18. ccsr
          ccsr 21 March 2021 15: 51
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          Do you think this is unprofessionalism?

          I think you are simply not well informed, and your guesses have nothing real with the plans that exist at the highest level.
          Quote: bayard
          Are we talking about a standard situation, or linking modernization plans to the most optimal case?

          I'm talking about the governing documents that define repairs in the armed forces.

          Quote: bayard
          Remind me of how England intercepted our military supplies for Syria on civilian ships?

          Remind under whose flag the ship was sailing, and what preceded it.
          Quote: bayard
          Or do you want to start building the Fleet only when trade communications are blocked for us?

          To do this, it is enough to attack with aircraft those who dare to encroach on our ships - it will cost less.
          Quote: bayard
          There is a hole in every specialist (remember the fate of the former head of the Pacific Fleet intelligence?

          I have no idea, and this is hardly some kind of outstanding event.
        19. bayard
          bayard 21 March 2021 17: 05
          0
          Quote: ccsr

          To do this, it is enough to attack with aircraft those who dare to encroach on our ships - it will cost less.

          In a distant sea or ocean area?
          Strategists?
          And what are we going to do? To drown?
          Quote: ccsr
          I think you are simply not well informed, and your guesses have nothing real with the plans that exist at the highest level.

          And again I will call on Ahura-Mazda to overshadow these wonderful people with wisdom and perspicacity.
          It was sincere.
          But it’s less and less to believe in "cunning plans", because everything looks like a fairy tale when a cunning man outwitted himself.
          Therefore - wisdom and again - wisdom.
          Quote: ccsr
          I'm talking about the governing documents that define repairs in the military.

          And I'm talking about when and how best to organize the modernization of existing SSBNs in SSGNs.
          And it would be better to give new ships a part of the resource (up to 10 years) as SSBNs and only then COMBINE medium repairs with modernization to a new quality.
          This is the most rational and justified by the production capabilities of shipbuilding and ship repair enterprises.
          Quote: ccsr
          Remind under whose flag the ship was sailing, and what preceded it.

          Most ships are now offshore registered. The Britons knew who was being stopped.
          Quote: ccsr
          I have no idea, and this is hardly some kind of outstanding event.

          His body and the body of his son were taken from the bottom of the bay by divers. In bags.
          And everyone thought that he flew to Moscow.
        20. ccsr
          ccsr 21 March 2021 20: 23
          0
          Quote: bayard
          In a distant sea or ocean area?

          At any.
          Quote: bayard
          Strategists?
          And what are we going to do? To drown?

          Including long-range aviation. It is not necessary to drown - it is easier to blow up a powerful land mine in the water nearby, any ship will receive damage from the shock wave.
          Quote: bayard
          Most ships are now offshore registered. The Britons knew who was being stopped

          Those. you don't know the story, nor that there was a fraudulent scheme, that's why our reaction was like that.
          Quote: bayard
          His body and the body of his son were taken from the bottom of the bay by divers. In bags.
          And everyone thought that he flew to Moscow.

          I have not heard a story about this, and I do not know what it is connected with. But I know that, for example, one of the former commanders of the 3rd brigade of the Special Forces went to jail for machinations while in civilian life. So I will not draw any conclusions based on your example.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 19 March 2021 17: 00
    +1
    Do not be sad. Happy Holidays.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 19 March 2021 11: 53
    0
    Quote: bayard
    You see? And what is the flight time for the Zircons from the Boreyev-K and Ash-M mines?
    Much less!

    Nobody denies this, but it is much more important that our Strategic Missile Forces fire a salvo with all their might. And how many extra minutes Americans will live is no longer important. Keep in mind that the main thing in our underwater part of the strategic nuclear forces is the diversion of the American missile defense to them, i.e. make it as difficult as possible to defeat our Strategic Missile Forces missiles.

    Quote: bayard
    in a 500-kilometer zone from both coasts of the United States.

    This is nonsense - our missile carriers cannot be brought up to such a distance, especially since we do not know everything about the US anti-submarine defense system and its capabilities.
    Quote: bayard
    What if the enemy decides to strike first?

    We just need to understand this and take action, that's what strategic intelligence is for.
    Quote: bayard
    And again you confirm my theses.

    I state my point of view and am glad that it finds understanding or coincidence with the opinion of others.
    Quote: bayard
    And they are being planned for deployment. Venezuela plans to open a naval base and an air force base by 2027.

    This is nonsense - it would be better to restore Lourdes and the base for servicing our submarine fleet in Cuba. Venezuelan positions are worse than Cuban ones - any military professional understands this.
    Quote: bayard
    You have the competence to appreciate the above, otherwise I would not have crumbled into beads.

    In some ways I agree with you, in others I do not, but keep in mind that I can only rely on the experience of past years, but what now in the heads of our strategists can only be judged by indirect signs.
    For example, once the construction of helicopter carriers was pushed through, with which I strongly disagreed, it means that options similar to the Syrian one are expected in the future, and on more distant shores. Thus, by analyzing the weapons programs, it will be possible to understand the strategy of the future.
  • bayard
    bayard 19 March 2021 12: 51
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    but it is much more important that our Strategic Missile Forces fire a salvo with all their might. And how many extra minutes Americans will live is no longer important.

    And for this, the Bulava, transferred to ground-based carriers, will come in handy - to strengthen the retaliatory oncoming / preventive strike. With their current basing on SSBNs, their full salvo is not guaranteed if not prepared in advance, because those in the bases are not a fact that they will be on duty and will be able to shoot from the pier. And by becoming conventional ICBMs, they can.
    Quote: ccsr
    Keep in mind that the main thing in our underwater part of the strategic nuclear forces is the diversion of the American missile defense to them, i.e. make it as difficult as possible to defeat our Strategic Missile Forces missiles.

    But for this - not even for distraction, but to exclude the US missile defense as such, advanced deployment SSGNs are needed. With the first strike of the Zirkons and Kalibrov-M, they will take out the entire missile defense system, naval base, command centers and airfields.
    And if there are "Borei-K" in the outfit of forces, then they will endure everything.
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bayard
    in a 500-kilometer zone from both coasts of the United States.

    This is nonsense - our missile carriers cannot be brought up to such a distance, especially since we do not know everything about the US anti-submarine defense system and its capabilities.

    This figure was not taken from the ceiling, it was voiced by both the President of Russia and a whole galaxy of regular propagandists (in a good way) of our time, maps and even animation of blows were shown. It was about this distance of combat patrols that was mentioned in other materials. This zone is outside the US special economic zone. And from such a distance, the SSGN will be able to keep the coastline up to 1500 km long at gunpoint of its "Zircons". and to a depth of 500 km. From a greater distance, everything narrows and contracts. But from such a line, two SSGNs in each ocean are guaranteed to hold at gunpoint all (!) US coasts.
    Quote: ccsr
    it would be better to restore Lourdes and the base for servicing our submarine fleet in Cuba.

    Cuba is too close to the United States, this was both a plus and a minus. Plus for reconnaissance and deployment of MRBM, KR and tactical aviation. And the downside is that all of Cuba is within the range of the US base strike aircraft. Therefore, for the service base of the submarine, this is rather a minus.
    But for diesel-electric submarines it would be just right.
    Quote: ccsr
    Venezuelan positions are worse than Cuban ones - any military professional understands this.

    The base in Venezuela is much more profitable for long-range (strategic) aviation and for the place of permanent basing of the ships of the operational squadron. Which you will certainly have to keep there. And in Cuba - the MTO base and jump airfields.
    And Lourdes. yes
    It would be nice to place the MiG-31K with "Daggers" in Cuba and the Kyrgyz Republic, if the United States starts deploying something similar in Southeast Asia and Europe.
    Quote: ccsr
    For example, once the construction of helicopter carriers was pushed through, with which I strongly disagreed, it means that options similar to the Syrian one are expected in the future, and on more distant shores. Thus, by analyzing the weapons programs, it will be possible to understand the strategy of the future.

    As far as I heard, the Mistrals were going to be used to service our future bases in Nicaragua (on both oceans), which were to cover the Nicaraguan Canal. Then this project was intensively prepared. But since 2014, everything has changed a lot and the project was postponed. it was originally planned that China finances the project, Russia protects, the profit from exploitation - on shares.
    Not fused.
    Plans for the opening of the Navy and Aerospace Forces in Venezuela were announced 2 - 3 years ago, the date is 2027.
    Are we looking at our plans?
    The first UDC should enter the stand, the new BDK are already in service, all laid down and ordered frigates 22350 are in service, all SSBNs and SSGNs are in service. "Kuznetsov" - in the ranks. “Nakhimov” has been in service for a long time. ”“ Peter the Great ”should also be back. The entire line of BOD 1155 should already undergo modernization. Series 22350M is on its way.
    So it all fits together.
    We should have dealt with naval aviation during this time - to recreate it. For without naval reconnaissance aircraft, AWACS aircraft, MRA and PLO aircraft, you will not be able to make a lot of battles with the fleet.
    Even having one.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 19 March 2021 13: 38
    0
    Quote: bayard
    And by becoming conventional ICBMs, they can.

    But from this they will not get closer to the territory of America.
    Quote: bayard
    This figure was not taken from the ceiling, it was voiced by both the President of Russia and a whole galaxy of regular propagandists (in a good way) of our time, maps and even animation of blows were shown.

    Believe less what they say to the press - here Yeltsin has already re-aimed the heads, and placed snipers, so trust the professionals, they know where and whom to send. Literally and figuratively.

    Quote: bayard
    And the downside is that all of Cuba is within the range of the US base strike aircraft.

    A half-million GSVG in the radius of NATO strike aircraft with nuclear weapons was at our side, and we somehow didn’t soar from it, but served.

    Quote: bayard
    The base in Venezuela is much more profitable for long-range (strategic) aviation and for the place of permanent basing of the ships of the operational squadron.

    Nonsense - the ruler will change, and everything will go to hell. And the land border of Venezuela is a big minus for us.

    Quote: bayard
    As far as I heard, the Mistrals were going to be used to service our future bases in Nicaragua (on both oceans), which were to cover the Nicaraguan Canal.

    Do you seriously believe this nonsense?
    Quote: bayard
    So it all fits together.

    Well, if only in abstract reflections, but in reality, we ourselves cannot understand now whether we will have to unpack the box in the event of a real confrontation with the United States, or urgently complete rearmament and prepare for the Afghan version in several regions at once, including in Ukraine ...
  • bayard
    bayard 19 March 2021 15: 56
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    But from this they will not get closer to the territory of America.

    What for ? It's an ICBM.
    But their former carriers will quite become themselves - with "Zircon" and "Caliber-M" in the mines.
    As a result, the flight time will REDUCE, and the blow to the camp is at least twice as powerful as the previous one ("Bulava" from land + "Zircons" \ "Caliber" from SSGN) and is inevitable.
    The US missile defense system will cease to exist within a few minutes after the decision is made.
    Quote: ccsr
    Believe less what they say to the press -

    And the press and Putin (thanks for the comparison with Yeltsin) did not take numbers from the ceiling - this was the line of combat patrols since the beginning of the 60s of our low-powered (in range), but numerous submarines. But in the new conditions, the distance of combat deployment can be revised.
    And if you shoot "Calibrom-M", then you can get it out of the heart of the ocean.
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bayard
    And the downside is that all of Cuba is within the range of the US base strike aircraft.

    The half-millionth GSVG within the radius of NATO strike aircraft with nuclear weapons was at our side, and we somehow did not soar from this, but served

    We have such a group in Cuba ... and now and no where, never will be. The number of the Ground Forces is almost two times less. ALL!
    We are not the same ... Cuba is not the same ... and the US is different too - they are nervous and in the full sense inadequate.
    So it is risky and unjustified to deploy all overseas infrastructure in Cuba. But the Intelligence Center, a container-type ZGRLS system at the southeastern end (so that the entire United States would cover the entire North Atlantic), an air defense system, an airfield for anti-submarine and fighter aircraft. Can . If the Cubans want it and will not demand exorbitant fees.
    And in Venezuela it will be calmer, and keep the southern part of the Caribbean Sea under control more conveniently. There you can place MRA aircraft, AWACS, a jump airfield for strategists and naval base. Regiment of fighters.
    Venezuela has the most powerful and efficient army in the region, and our bases will strengthen the current government and will be a guarantee of the US non-aggression for the approval of the new Guaido.
    Venezuela is rich not only in oil, if not for the blockade and more economically competent leadership, it would long ago become a regional leader.
    There is also Nicaragua, but since the plans with the canal were put aside, perhaps as an additional item of the PMTO.
    Quote: ccsr
    Nonsense - the ruler will change, and everything will go to hell. And the land border of Venezuela is a big minus for us.

    The government has withstood in much worse conditions for itself, and even with our bases it will become even more a stronghold.
    And the land border can be a plus. In the end, the regimes of Venezuela's neighbors are also not eternal, but how will the coups go there?
    ... And small si will rally under Venezuela ... bully lol This is humor, if that.
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bayard
    As far as I heard, the Mistrals were going to be used to service our future bases in Nicaragua (on both oceans), which were to cover the Nicaraguan Canal.

    Do you seriously believe this nonsense?

    I heard this not from the press and not at the bazaar, but from the headquarters of the Navy ... though it was a long time ago, when only the Mistrals were agreed ... It almost sounded like this: "Medvedev and Serdyukov ordered the Mistrals," and we were given the task to write them into the organizational structure and come up with tasks. "
    Exactly - to come up with.
    Here, he says, we think ... lol
    And they came up with it!
    To protect the future channel !!! yes
    It seemed to me then, too, pure delirium, but after a few years they began to talk and write about it, to shoot stories ... Well, I think they came up with it. what
    At the expense of the canal in Nicaragua. laughing
    Now those plans are apparently "ordered to forget."
    Quote: ccsr
    But in reality, we ourselves cannot understand now whether we will have to unpack the box in the event of a real confrontation with the United States, or urgently complete rearmament and prepare for the Afghan version in several regions at once, including Ukraine.

    Yes - the demons overlaid. yes
    It's just that the "Ukrainian question" had to be resolved back in the spring of 2014.
    And there would be no problems now - at least Ukraine would be a part of the Union State, no sanctions, interruptions and difficulties with transit (everything), with aircraft and ship engines, the construction of resins for VTA and special aviation (the entire line of An and engines for Be -200), the CSTO would have long ago acquired its own united regional military groupings (for Central Asia, the creation of a consolidated corps was planned for 2014 ... BRICS would live and develop, acquiring new members ... the standard of living in Russia and other EAEU countries continued would grow steadily, as before 2014
    Loved? repeat
    Yes ! yes
    Well, now it's time to fix the old jambs - it will be multiples more expensive ... I would even say - by an order of magnitude ... But we need to do - these are our problems and we will solve them.
    Preventive measures are needed in Central Asia. And it seems to me that life itself shows the sequence of actions - Iran has applied for an URGENT entry and membership in the EAEU.
    Until early March inclusive.
    It can be seen burning ...
    And immediately after that, one should tackle ... the "Afghan issue" and the very fact of the American presence there.
    China doesn't like this. No.
    Iran doesn't like this. No.
    Pakistan doesn't like this! (although it would seem how much effort their intelligence put on fueling the Afghan fire) repeat
    Russia does not like this. yes
    And Afghanistan itself does not like it VERY MUCH. angry
    And the local Central Asian princes are sitting on pins and needles, waiting for the bearded American mercenaries-Wahhabis to come and demolish their regimes ... without armies and in general a power component.
    And if the interests of the United States in Afghanistan have come together so amicably among all neighbors, then it is not a sin to help the Afghan patriots ... repeat
    And the crap will no longer be with us, but quite the opposite. bully
    And all the guys need to throw weapons.
    It is possible through Iran.
    You can help Afghanistan's neighbors create PMCs and start burning ISIS in the northern regions of Afghanistan.
    And the settled Taliban will engage in knocking the United States out of the region.
    Moreover, in power in Afghanistan, almost exclusively graduates of our - Soviet universities.
    There are simply no other frames there. One of their ministers was (maybe remained) a classmate of my friend ... They remember the USSR very warmly, regret their stupidity and call back.
    Not the Army (although it would be accepted as friendly, but this is not our case), but in general - trade, education, economy, energy, extraction and processing of resources ...
    Afghans are very much afraid that China will enter ...
    Russia would be accepted ... but Russia is not ready ... request recourse
    But in vain.
    With Japan ... only a couple of MiG-31K squadrons in Transbaikalia. soldier
  • ccsr
    ccsr 19 March 2021 19: 02
    0
    Quote: bayard
    What for ? It's an ICBM.

    Do you believe that the Americans will not improve their missile defense system?

    Quote: bayard
    We have such a group in Cuba ... and now and no where, never will be.

    Nobody said this - we need Cuba as a position for strategic reconnaissance and as a base for servicing the fleet.

    Quote: bayard
    Venezuela has the most powerful and efficient army in the region,

    Saddam was even cooler, and where is she now?
    Quote: bayard
    It seemed to me then, too, pure delirium,

    It will remain nonsense - investors will send us away, and this will be the end of it.
    Quote: bayard
    And all the guys need to throw weapons.

    Yes, we tried in Syria - now we do not know when we will leave from there. So do not get excited - we have already built socialism all over the world, we have failed with this business.
    "Calm, only calm" - this is the slogan of the day for our lovers of shaking their arms.
  • bayard
    bayard 19 March 2021 20: 23
    +1
    Quote: ccsr
    Do you believe that the Americans will not improve their missile defense system?

    So far, their missile defense is capable of shooting down missiles of the level of the 60s of the last century - without the use of false targets, without electronic countermeasures, without maneuvering warheads.
    And even for such simple targets, they hit with a probability of no more than 50%.
    So not impressive yet.
    They will, of course, improve, but so far their missile defense systems are freely overcome (potentially, in practice, no one has tried) Soviet ICBMs of the 80s. More modern missiles represent even more complex targets ... so I don't really believe in the future impenetrability of their promising missile defense system. they will simply not keep up with the improvement of the means of attack.
    In addition, for this very missile defense system, the Zircons will have to work out the same Yasens, of which two of them are promised to be included in the Fleet this year.

    Quote: ccsr
    - We need Cuba as a position for strategic reconnaissance and as a base for servicing the fleet.

    And if the United States ceases to adhere to the agreements concluded under Khrushchev with regard to Cuba?
    And will they do what they do with Iraq?
    If we start to re-deploy our military infrastructure there, then we will have to think about its protection ... And the United States is unlikely to accept this with humility.
    It's easier in Venezuela - farther from the US coast, a more powerful army, and our submarines will not be escorted immediately after leaving the base. And the United States will react not so painfully.
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bayard
    Venezuela has the most powerful and efficient army in the region,

    Saddam was even cooler, and where is she now?

    Saddam was left alone against a huge coalition, he had no allies at all ... It's his own fault, there was nothing to listen to the American bankers.
    Quote: ccsr
    It will remain nonsense - investors will send us away, and this will be the end of it.

    I just came across material on this topic.
    Then - at the turn of 00 and XNUMXth, China carried out Operation Disinformation - about the beginning of the construction of the Nicaraguan Canal. To be convincing, Russia was also involved in this (his defense and engineers). Construction has begun. There was a powerful PR company. Shares of the Panama Canal plummeted as it needed urgent repairs and refurbishment. The Americans did not dare to invest ... but China did. The modernization was successfully carried out, China owns a controlling stake, profit from operation with very large preferences, and the Nicaraguan idea was abandoned as unnecessary.
    But then in Russia they really believed that they had been made a good offer.
    It's funny ...
    Quote: ccsr
    Yes, we tried in Syria - now we do not know when we will leave from there.

    The Syrians are not warriors and never were. On the contrary, Afghans are warriors by nature ... but today no one helps them in their trouble.
    What if you help?
    Give me a weapon? Highlight intelligence? Support morally (this is also not a small matter in the struggle)? Help with training?
    I think they will arrange such a bath for the penguins that they will run much more hectic than from Vietnam.
    Quote: ccsr
    we have already built socialism all over the world, we have failed with this business.

    Yes, in general, it worked well.
    It's just that the sons of the nomenklatura wanted to become "new Russians", and the dads could not refuse them.
    The communists wanted to become capitalists, and they did.
    But we have been very good at working through ideology, an alternative way of developing society. And we won. Round by round. And if not for the self-surrender of the party elite of the entire Socialist camp, CMEA, Warsaw Pact and the USSR ...
    "Where the sword was powerless, gold won" ...
    A British spy and the son of a Turkish citizen, together with a group of like-minded agents ... liquidated what was impossible to defeat either by military or economic methods.
    Truly - a donkey laden with gold takes any fortress.
    But it was not a loss in a fair fight.
    We didn't overstrain. We were betrayed.
    Quote: ccsr
    "Calm, only calm"

    There is no place more peaceful than a cemetery - eternal peace. (the last phrase is read in chant ... you can wave the censer). It's a joke. repeat
    The ram, led to the slaughter, is calm ... after all, the shepherd cared about him so much all his life ... yes
    Chickens on perches are calm - chicken soup can only be in the inflamed brains of alarmists. yes
    And only an eagle soaring under the heavens is QUIET, for it sees everything ... wink
    He is wise and reasonable ... yes
    But he doesn't care. bully
  • ccsr
    ccsr 20 March 2021 17: 03
    0
    Quote: bayard
    What if you help?

    Do you personally need it? I absolutely do not need - it is better to deal with my territory, it is more useful for the people.
    Quote: bayard
    We didn't overstrain. We were betrayed.

    This does not in any way deny the very fact of the collapse of the USSR. I hope you do not want a repetition of such a scenario for Russia, even if there are other reasons - purely economic?

    Quote: bayard
    And only an eagle soaring under the heavens is QUIET, for it sees everything ...
    He is wise and reasonable ...

    So we need to soar above the bustle of the world - the main thing is that our Strategic Missile Forces are on constant alert, everything else is fuss, and with the fleet too.
  • bayard
    bayard 20 March 2021 18: 39
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Do you personally need it? I absolutely do not need - it is better to deal with my territory, it is more useful for the people.

    When enemies are as busy as possible with their problems, there is no better time for the prosperity of the Fatherland.
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bayard
    We didn't overstrain. We were betrayed.

    This does not in any way deny the very fact of the collapse of the USSR. I hope you do not want a repetition of such a scenario for Russia, even if there are other reasons - purely economic?

    Economic? ...
    Well, this is only if not only the budget and the Pension Fund are plundered (as has already been done many times), but also the entire Reserve Fund with the Fund for Development and National Welfare ...
    And such things happen only by intent (evil), and not for objective reasons.
    But these days are not the times to throw stones (capital on offshore), namely to collect.
    In domestic offshores.
    And as you know - money should WORK.
    Including for the welfare of the people, because without a large (capacious) internal market, they will have nowhere to work.
    So all the stars converge and it's time to work.
    So I do not wish the Fatherland any shocks, but I wish you exceptional PROSPERITY and POWER.
    And what is the power without the Navy?
    How is it safe to transport oil from Venezuela?
    The accounts of the Venezuelan oil company have been opened in Russia. All payments go through our banks. And our companies work THERE ... And there is gold ... and all sorts of other things ...
    It is necessary to protect such an ally.
    And tankers from Iran must be guarded ... and Iran itself, for from May it will be in the same Union State with us.
    And he has a lot of oil.
    And gold.
    And all sorts of useful things ... the market, for example, a large ... wants a lot of airplanes ... our ... different ... and a gas pipeline ... and gas-liquefying capacities (and we just have technologies ... and production for them ) ...
    And Cuba, of course, is good there. There is sun, sea, palm trees, beaches, guitars, girls ... and the heroic Cuban People.
    Cuba has always been a good hedgehog in the ass of Imperialism. yes
    With our missiles, radars (early warning system "Voronezh", ZGRLS "Container"), S-400, airfields of fighter, strike and special aviation, with MiG-31K and "Dagger" with him ...
    And most importantly - fun ... FUN will live on planet Earth ... to the hot rhythms of the Cuban guitar fellow ... and calmly ... it will be peaceful in our God-protected Fatherland. bully

    Quote: ccsr
    So we need to soar above the bustle of the world - the main thing is that our Strategic Missile Forces are on constant alert, everything else is fuss, and with the fleet too.

    Under the canopy of relatives of the Strategic Missile Forces, of course, it is good and cozy ... But it is doubly reliable and easy at heart when your pistol is at the temple of your enemy. When caravans of tankers, gas carriers and other ships peacefully and safely plow the vastness of the oceans, and not a single infection will encroach on your property and the property of your friends.
    We won - two superyards are being built (one is already being completed) for the construction of a tanker and gas carrier fleet, ships are being built for it in Korea and China ... And who should PROTECT them? The property of the people and domestic oligarchs?
    After all, they are oligarchs, property must be protected. After all, they are oligarchs because, like Siamese brothers, they have grown together with the authorities ...
    So the Fleet is still needed.
    I say - all the stars converged.
    That's why all the balls are in the pocket.
    And the Fleet should be offensive, not huddled in "bastions".
    For who is he there - in the "bastions" to protect?
    What freedom of navigation will it provide?
    How will the wealth of the people and the domestic oligarchs increase from there?
    wink Only as indicated in the above comments.

    ... And we will soar above everyday life and enjoy the state when everything is on the drum.
    hi
  • Serg65
    Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 56
    +4
    Quote: vladimir1155
    why should we look for enemy submarines in the Indian Ocean?

    You, Vladimir, personally ... except for a basin in your bath, you don't need anything .... at VO, everyone is already aware of this!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 14: 05
      -6
      Quote: Serg65
      personally ... except for the basin

      did not notice in your opus not a single argument other than kindergarten cries, "oh let me play ... she didn't give me ... ahh (sobbing) give me a bowl" give an argument from the field of tactics and strategy technique or go to kindergarten
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 31
        +4
        Quote: vladimir1155
        give an argument from the field of tactics and strategy technique or go to kindergarten

        I'm not Don Quixote to fight windmills, so pass by hi
  • Anzhey V.
    17 March 2021 11: 50
    +4
    Dear Vladimir, do not consider it rude, but at the moment we would at least to reach the level of the Soviet Navy, taking into account its mistakes.

    1. The text quite clearly states that naval aviation must be balanced and provided with its own fighter cover.
    2. The nearest possible points of operational deployment of our Navy are covered by Khmeimim. Yes, for the time being, it will be extremely difficult for us to act in remote waters - however, this state of affairs will not change in the next 15 years (at least, taking into account the economic and political situation in the country) in any scenario.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 17 March 2021 11: 59
      +2
      Quote: Anjay V.
      Dear Vladimir, do not consider it rude, but at the current moment we would at least reach the level of the Soviet Navy, taking into account its mistakes.
      I'm afraid that "at least" is very optimistic, no matter how sad it is. But the Navy's reliance on basic aviation is a purely passive defense, it seems to me. Thank you for the article!
      1. Anzhey V.
        17 March 2021 12: 14
        +2
        Thank you!

        In general, you are right - we are primarily talking about passive defense: strong defense in those areas where now nothing at all will shine for us - for example, in the Pacific Ocean.

        In other directions, a similar approach can provide offensive operations: for example, in the Baltic.

        In general, this topic is extensive, and it is more suitable for a separate article)
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 17 March 2021 12: 39
      0
      it will be possible to reach only in the presence of the south of Novorossiya ..............................
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 00
      -2
      Quote: Anjay V.
      1. The text quite clearly states that naval aviation must be balanced and provided with its own fighter cover.
      2. The nearest possible points of operational deployment of our Navy are covered by Khmeimim. Yes, for the time being, it will be extremely difficult for us to act in remote waters - however, this state of affairs will not change in the next 15 years (at least, taking into account the economic and political situation in the country) in any scenario.

      everything is correct, but to reach the USSR, ... there is no country, there is no that possibility (budget), so only nuclear submarines can go beyond 3000 km from nuclear submarine bases ...
      1. Anzhey V.
        17 March 2021 13: 53
        +2
        I agree with you in your statements that first of all we need to ensure control of our border waters - at the current time, even if the Americans donate all their aircraft carriers with planes to us for free, we will still not be able to perform operational tasks at the DMZ.

        What impresses me is the example of China - they persistently develop defensive capabilities, despite the large-scale shipbuilding program.

        We should take a closer look at this.

        However, it is also not worth going into defense exclusively - but it depends on the theater of operations, and I think I will write a separate article about this.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 14: 00
          -1
          Quote: Anjay V.
          However, it is also not worth going into defense exclusively - but it depends on the theater of operations, and I think I will write a separate article about this.

          I completely agree, but for an arm's length in the oceans, there are SSBNs, they are and we must have them, and not to destroy the marines with battalions in Africa
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 17 March 2021 10: 29
    -4
    In accordance with the norms of the Russian language, the phrase should sound like this -
    Execute: no mercy.
    1. Dread
      Dread 17 March 2021 16: 46
      -6
      Quote: Bez 310
      Quote: Anjay V.

      But after all, an AWACS aircraft can illuminate the operational situation of both the surface and airspace, providing tracking of targets, right?

      No, not so.
      AWACS - air situation, and no more.
      The surface situation must be opened on
      distance 1500-2000 from the coast, airplanes
      AWACS are not capable of this.

      Bez 310 - AWACS - long-range radar detection... Don't write fairy tales. AWACS aircraft are designed for long-range radar detection of air targets, surface targets...
      Learn materiel and do not write with Timokhin about something that you do not know at all. And also hello to your illiterate minusuators - Russophobes, let them learn the materiel together with you!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 17 March 2021 10: 33
    +15
    In a past life I had to serve
    in naval aviation, so I'm a little into
    I understand it. I think the message is correct
    author that now, due to various
    reasons, it is necessary to develop aviation
    fleet, and stop wasting money on those
    the "rocket boats" of which we are "proud."
    But here is the author's approach to the formation of MA
    I think it's not entirely true. And above all
    raise questions of dreams about the Su-35 as
    strike aircraft. Don't quite understand cravings
    author for the A-100 aircraft in naval aviation.
    It's time to think about creating a new plane
    PLA (reconnaissance) based passenger like this
    made by the Americans with their "Poseidon".
    But first you need to decide what tasks
    should decide MA, in which directions and
    frontiers. (Example - you need to be able to
    destroy carriers of aviation and CD at the borders
    Only then can you go to
    to determine the types and number of aircraft
    by tasks.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 11: 58
        -10%
        Quote: Dread
        hidden troll-Russophobe and now you are proposing deliberately dead-end paths. Without you and Timokhin - the all-consuming people, they will figure it out about the development of the Russian Navy.

        that's right, he didn't even decide where he served in long-range or naval aviation, ... of course, making another a100 specifically for the fleet is simply stupid, a100 may well serve both on land and at sea without modification, it also applies to strike aviation, su35, tu22, Tu160, some naval versions are not needed from the word at all, the naval version is obviously required for the PLO aircraft, you can discuss, personally I am a supporter of the flat, but I would not mind altering the version of the flat
        1. mik193
          mik193 17 March 2021 12: 56
          +3
          Tu-95 in the PLO version is called Tu-142.
          1. novel66
            novel66 17 March 2021 13: 01
            +4
            Are there any of them left?
            1. mik193
              mik193 17 March 2021 19: 56
              -1
              They write that for 2020 there were about 30 pieces left. to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.
              1. Orkraider
                Orkraider 17 March 2021 23: 53
                +3
                Quote: mik193
                They write that for 2020 there were about 30 pieces left. to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.


                Welcome.
                Not certainly in that way:

                For Tu-142MZ: today there are 6 cars, board number: 59,51,54,64,97,53 (photo below)
                Another 6 Tu-142MK aircraft are being upgraded to M3.
                The remaining 9 are MR.

                Total 6 M3, 6 MK and 9 MR.




      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. novel66
      novel66 17 March 2021 11: 25
      +4
      also the message to the Su-35 seemed strange. range, then where? meet the enemy off the coast? give Tu-95 ms and more!
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 12: 58
        -4
        different planes are needed, different planes are important
        1. novel66
          novel66 17 March 2021 13: 00
          +2
          but 35th as BASIC strike aircraft ???
    3. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 11: 41
      +2
      Hello Bez!

      My arguments in favor of these aircraft models are due solely to the industrial and economic capabilities of the country.

      I would be extremely happy if we had the opportunity to produce a series of separate multipurpose fighter-bombers for naval aviation, as the United States does - but, unfortunately, so far we do not have such a luxury and is not foreseen.

      Therefore, it is necessary to proceed from the current needs: if it is possible to use the basic Su-35S as a universal aircraft, both as a fighter and as an anti-ship missile carrier, it must be used.

      Of course, in the interests of naval missile-carrying aviation, the hypothetical Su-34 in the naval version looks preferable - but this option is bad from the point of view of our current logistics capabilities.

      The situation with the AWACS aircraft is even simpler - we do not yet have any alternatives to the A-100. If we can ensure that a number of operational tasks are carried out only by them, we will have to do just that.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 17 March 2021 12: 07
        +7
        Quote: Anjay V.
        we do not yet have any alternatives to the A-100.

        Su-35 cannot carry a normal anti-ship missile with a large
        range of launch, can not issue a control center to the rocket, but
        launching "towards the goal" will not bring much benefit.
        What tasks can the A-100 solve for the Navy?
        1. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 12: 16
          0
          Actually, I considered the A-100 as a means of targeting and providing operational reconnaissance.

          If I'm wrong, please correct.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 12: 39
            +2
            Talk about different things, A-100 is an AWACS, Bez 310 is talking about an anti-submarine patrol aircraft (PLC), such as P-8 Poseidon.
            The first works in the interests of aviation and is physically unable to conduct reconnaissance and target designation at surface and underwater targets, only at air targets. Accordingly, the second is vice versa. AWACS and PLC are parallel to each other.
            1. Anzhey V.
              17 March 2021 13: 17
              0
              But after all, an AWACS aircraft can illuminate the operational situation of both the surface and airspace, providing tracking of targets, right?

              We have an acute problem of target designation - and what is better for solving it than an AWACS aircraft?
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 13: 29
                +3
                Quote: Anjay V.
                both the surface and airspace, providing tracking of targets, right?

                No not like this. Different radars operate in air and water. To search for submarines, completely different means are needed.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                We have an acute problem of target designation - and what is better for solving it than an AWACS aircraft?

                There is no better air target. Without them, in principle, it is impossible to build an effective air defense system.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  17 March 2021 13: 56
                  +2
                  I beg your pardon, but I did not speak about the "search for submarines" using an AWACS aircraft)

                  Explain, please, why the Americans use, for example, "Hawkeye" for the issuance of target designation for sea targets, but we, using the much more advanced A-100 in terms of characteristics, will not be able to do this?
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 14: 04
                    +4
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    Please explain why the Americans use, for example, "Hawkeye" for the issuance of target designation for sea targets

                    Because Hawkeye doesn't. In the air wing of an aircraft carrier and other ships, this is the task of the MH-60R, with the APS-147/153 radar.
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      17 March 2021 14: 46
                      0
                      Sorry, but the maximum (and unconfirmed) target designation range by this station is 200 miles (320 km). Given its compactness, there are some doubts about this - however, even 320 km is an extremely small distance by the standards of modern naval missile weapons.
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 15: 06
                        +4
                        Why do you think target designation at sea is such a problem? It cannot be solved by one means, there are a lot of "nuances". Search, detection, identification and then only target designation requires the use of the entire complex of space, air, surface and underwater means. Klimov and Timokhin talk about this.
                        You are dealing with a very difficult topic, you decided to approach very easily. Will not work. I am glad that you adequately perceive the clarifications.
                        Detection of surface and air targets requires physically different radars and related equipment. They cannot be placed on one plane. It is heavy in weight, requires a lot of energy, and most importantly, it will interfere with each other's work. So far, we'll see in the future.
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        17 March 2021 15: 19
                        +3
                        Wonderful things, however - I was taught that AWACS aircraft can provide comprehensive detection of both surface and air targets.

                        Well, thank you for the clarification.

                        I began to consider the topic of other means of detection and target designation on purpose - there is too much material, and the presence, for example, of the same MRKTs is one of the guarantees for the development of defense capabilities, regardless of the path of development of the fleet; in a word, it is something so self-evident that it makes no sense to talk about it separately.
                      3. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 15: 30
                        +2
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        I was taught that AWACS aircraft can provide comprehensive detection of both surface and air targets.

                        It's like in a vulgar joke "but there is a nuance." In theory, AWACS can suggest that somewhere over the horizon a ship or a vessel may have appeared, but this is his authority.
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        this is something so self-evident that it makes no sense to talk about it separately.

                        In my opinion, this is primary. We need to talk a lot about this. In modern realities, whoever was the first to discover, identified and won. In our country, the performance characteristics of the means of destruction overshadow the eyes, so they build useless missile boats, instead of the really necessary means of PLO.
                  2. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 17: 23
                    +2
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    the target designation range by this station is 200 miles (320 km).

                    By the way, you have just revealed a terrible secret why the range of ship-borne anti-ship missiles does not exceed 270-300 km.
          2. Bez 310
            Bez 310 17 March 2021 13: 49
            +7
            Quote: Anjay V.
            But after all, an AWACS aircraft can illuminate the operational situation of both the surface and airspace, providing tracking of targets, right?

            No, not so.
            AWACS - air situation, and no more.
            The surface situation must be opened on
            distance 1500-2000 from the coast, airplanes
            AWACS are not capable of this.
            1. Nestor Vlakhovski
              Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 14: 27
              -6
              AWACS - air situation, and no more.
              Precisely that "more". Detection of above-mentioned targets is one of the main tasks of all AWACS since the time of their creation.
              The surface situation must be opened on
              distance 1500-2000 from the coast, airplanes
              you need a lot of things. But the reality is that there is nothing to fantasize about aerial reconnaissance outside the air defense zotik. Then only satellites.
              AWACS are not capable of this.
              ...no comment. Did you definitely serve?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 17 March 2021 15: 02
                +7
                Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                Detection of surface targets has been one of the main tasks of all AWACS since their inception.

                I'm tired of telling, but I will repeat myself.
                Once an A-22 was brought to our Tu-2m50 division with the aim of
                studying the capabilities of the A-50 to detect surface
                targets, and the guidance of the strike forces of the MRA.
                A-50 with officers of the division headquarters on board went in advance
                to position, and we took off to hit the KUG. No help
                in target detection the A-50 did not help us, as it could not
                discover ships amid the rough seas.
                As the saying goes - "he has the wrong system of grenades ...".
                1. Nestor Vlakhovski
                  Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 15: 24
                  -4
                  As the saying goes - "he has the wrong system of grenades ...".
                  If the A-50 itself is not capable of performing its main task (like most other analogue networks), this means that you need to deal with this problem, and not pull an owl on the globe mocking common sense. Control of air and surface space is the direct responsibility of AWACS. Anti-submarine aviation is looking for submarines and is involved in search and rescue operations.
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 17 March 2021 15: 38
                    +6
                    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                    Control of air and surface space is the direct responsibility of AWACS.

                    Well, I do not know...
                    Our AWACS aircraft have nothing to do with
                    do not have control of surface space.
                    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                    Anti-submarine aviation is looking for submarines and is involved in search and rescue operations.

                    Why did you write this?
                  2. Nestor Vlakhovski
                    Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 15: 51
                    -3
                    Our AWACS aircraft have nothing to do with
                    do not have control of surface space.
                    Because there is no general concept for the development and use of the armed forces, interdepartmental interaction resembles the fable "swan, cancer and pike." And it is treated only in a way, for the mention of which it will be banned here on the site.

                    Why did you write this?
                    There, in the comments above, they offer to conduct surface reconnaissance and give target designation to ships from the Poseidon and the unfortunate anti-submarine Sea Hawk.
                  3. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 17 March 2021 16: 05
                    +6
                    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                    conduct surface reconnaissance and give target designation to ships from the Poseidon

                    Poseidon is a multifunctional aircraft
                    these are not our Tu-142 and Il-38, although their
                    they are being driven for reconnaissance.
                  4. Nestor Vlakhovski
                    Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 16: 34
                    -1
                    "Poseidon" - a multifunctional aircraft
                    Everything is true, but for a millimeter radar with a detection range of large surface targets within 100 km, this is clearly not an effective use of the available means. The Poseidon also has anti-aircraft missiles, but you are not trying to make it an interceptor fighter, or ... ??
                  5. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 17 March 2021 16: 55
                    +5
                    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                    radar with a detection range of large surface targets within 100 km

                    What plane are you talking about?
                    Okay, no-one talks, let's finish ...
                  6. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 17: 51
                    +4
                    I am not suggesting, I am claiming. The Poseidons are equipped with a Raytheon APY-10 X-band centimeter radar. Working on land, water and the border of these environments. The range for the aircraft carrier type target is 450 km, the destroyer is 320 km.
                  7. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 17 March 2021 18: 28
                    +7
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    The Poseidons are equipped with a Raytheon APY-10 centimeter X-band radar.

                    That's right!
  • Anzhey V.
    17 March 2021 14: 33
    +4
    I apologize. I believed that the capabilities of modern AWACS aircraft allow them to perform the tasks of the IDRC.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 17 March 2021 12: 56
    0
    If possible, about the logistics capabilities for the Su-34 in more detail. How are they different from the Su-35S?
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 13: 31
      +5
      Not only logistic, but also operational.

      We need to ensure local air superiority and have a full-time ability to use anti-ship missiles and UABs.

      The Su-34 is better suited for assault and strike missions, but its aerial combat capabilities are limited solely to self-defense.

      If we create strike formations of tactical aviation on the basis of the Su-34, we will have to spend money and expand the organizational structure for separately manned fighter squadrons.

      The Su-35S is more versatile - accordingly, we will have more free funds for the development of other areas.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 17 March 2021 17: 23
        -1
        I did not understand anything about the logistical differences between the Su-34 and the Su-35S. Anyway.

        Let's move on to the second point. That is, do you assume that the Su-35S, having worked at the maximum radius against sea targets, should also engage in air combat with the AUG air cover, thereby ensuring "local air superiority"? And to return back on enthusiasm? And without fuel? Or, for example, the Su-35S, having repelled an enemy air raid together with the air defense, then they hang anti-ship missiles and UABs on the ground, and go to work on naval targets? In fact, you are proposing to revive the IBA, which was destroyed in the early 90s.

        The only difference is that the Su-35S is not a MiG-27, Su-17M4. It is a FIRMER FOR CONQUESTING EXCELLENCE IN THE AIR. It's designed for that. And therefore surpasses almost all modern foreign counterparts in its capabilities in air combat.

        The suspension of large anti-ship missiles and UABs on it will significantly reduce aerodynamic characteristics and reduce the range. Reconsideration of the flight personnel design bureau towards saturation with the tasks of supporting ground and sea forces will worsen the quality of training pilots as fighters.

        The idea of ​​a versatile aircraft is popular in the US and NATO. So what? They had to gouge in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, where the capabilities of the local air defense and the combat training of their crews allowed them to do this.

        Throwing a Su-35S against an adversary for land or sea strikes is nonsense. It's easier to immediately burn the planes on the ground, even though the pilots will survive.

        The USSR Air Force had FA - IA, IBA, SHA, BA and RA. From the SHA in the RF Air Force, there were pitiful scraps. The Su-25 is not produced, but is being modernized at a snail's pace. IBA - no for 20 years. In fact, there is a shortage of strike aircraft capable of operating in the same operational-tactical depth.

        The air forces of each country have their own traditions. I remember that Tukhachevsky in the 30s got everyone with his "universal guns", which were supposed to work both for ground and air targets. The war showed all the harmfulness of universalism.

        Do you want to repeat this experience?

        In Russia, the presence of a powerful strike bomber aircraft is an advantage..

        The aggressor can be defeated without applying the so-called. "unacceptable damage", but the complete destruction of his forces and means, PU, ​​command post, etc.

        I have not come across the term "local air superiority" in military science. But how classical air superiority is achieved has long been known.
        1. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 18: 00
          +1
          I did not understand anything about the logistical differences between the Su-34 and the Su-35S. anyway


          Is the maintenance of a fleet of two types of aircraft not additional difficulties in logistics?)

          Or, for example, the Su-35S, having repelled an enemy air raid together with the air defense, then they hang anti-ship missiles and UABs on the ground, and go to work on naval targets? In fact, you are proposing to revive the IBA, which was destroyed in the early 90s.


          Here our thoughts coincide with you - however, not completely. I propose to create an aircraft fleet based on the Su-35S, as an aircraft that is suitable for equipping both fighter and bomber squadrons, which, if necessary, can perform all types of combat missions, depending on the configuration of weapons.

          No, we do not need to attach ATV, RVV, and anti-ship missiles to one fighter.

          The war showed all the harmfulness of universalism.


          Extensive combat experience in the use of fighter-bombers from Western countries refutes this statement.
          1. avia12005
            avia12005 17 March 2021 20: 22
            0
            In military affairs, striving for minimalism and universalization is the path to defeat. According to your logic, why have tanks and self-propelled guns, if you can teach tanks to shoot with mounted fire? And the logistics will be easier. You did not see what I wrote about the western experience of using multipurpose aircraft. If you think Iraqi air defense is the same as AUG air defense, then this is a misconception to justify universalism in combat aviation. By the way, look at how many types of aircraft are in the US Navy. You will be pleasantly surprised.
            1. Anzhey V.
              17 March 2021 21: 39
              +1
              In military affairs, striving for minimalism and universalization is the path to defeat


              You made this discovery - and at the same time refuted one of the main vectors of the development of the arms sphere: standardization and universalization!

              On this I propose to end our conversation. All the best)
              1. avia12005
                avia12005 17 March 2021 21: 43
                -2
                Same to you. I am very pleased with your discoveries in the field of the combat use of aviation and your ability to bypass logically arising questions. All the best)
        2. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 18: 07
          0
          The USSR Air Force had FA - IA, IBA, SHA, BA and RA. From the SHA in the RF Air Force, there were pitiful scraps. The Su-25 is not produced, but is being modernized at a snail's pace. IBA - no for 20 years. In fact, there is a shortage of strike aircraft capable of operating in the same operational-tactical depth


          It's great to be beautiful and healthy and rich ...

          You know, I agree with your statements. And yes, the Su-35S is far from the best choice. But he optimal in our realities.

          I am not talking about what can be done best - I am thinking in terms of what we can do to improve combat effectiveness, based on our current capabilities.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 18: 16
            +1
            Quote: Anjay V.
            The Su-35S is far from the best choice. But it is optimal in our realities.

            I agree with the fact that it is necessary to initially consider a full-fledged fighter, it is easier to teach them to work on the surface. But he would choose the Su-30, he is a 2-seater, the latest upgrades come from the unifications of the Su-35, more mastered in production, there is a ready-made Indian version. Those. analogue of F / A-18F.
    2. DMi
      DMi 17 March 2021 14: 08
      0
      34 tons can be attached to the SU3 suspension, 30 tons on the SU35 / 1,5. That's the difference: more powerful and heavier rockets and various attachments.
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 15: 42
        +1
        You can attach 34 tons to the SU3 suspension, 30 tons on the SU35 / 1,5
        Bombs with a caliber of more than 34 tons have never been hooked to the base su1,5 without modifications. With minimal modifications, heavy ammunition (onyx. Calibers) can be carried by ordinary Su30 / 35. The Su34 has no advantage. But there is a heavy armored cabin as a ballast.
        1. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 16: 02
          +2
          I agree with you.

          I would also add that the Su-30/35 have full-fledged air combat capabilities, the Su-34 needs fighter cover (which, as often happens, may simply not be available at the right time - not to mention doubling the number of air regiments (separate fighter and separate bomber)).
        2. DMi
          DMi 17 March 2021 16: 44
          +3
          And didn't you hang pendant tanks weighing 3 tons on su 34?) The design allows. And the design of the su 35 is not. Gliders are different, with different strengths. Hindus on SS 30 were able to hang one brahmos with tambourines. But this does not have a very good effect on the aircraft's resource. He's not designed for that. And SU34 is calculated. You can hang two conventional brahmos on it.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 17 March 2021 20: 40
    0
    Quote: Bez 310
    Only after that you can proceed to the definition of types ... aircraft
    by tasks.
    Long-range and medium-range PLO aircraft, reconnaissance target designator, AWACS, repeater, tanker, missile carrier, rescuer, possibly flying headquarters and flying drone control center. They need to be built on the basis of a new heavy and medium transport aircraft with maximum unification with civil aircraft, or new civilian passenger and transport aircraft should be created on their basis (as they did before).
  • SaLaR
    SaLaR 17 March 2021 10: 42
    -1
    The fleet will be ... drinks
    1. novel66
      novel66 17 March 2021 11: 25
      +2
      no one argues ... argue which one ...
  • avia12005
    avia12005 17 March 2021 10: 44
    +13
    “The idea of ​​creating specialized naval vehicles based on front-line Su-34 bombers in my eyes looks almost criminal. Such a step will entail additional R&D, delay in the launch of production, lack of unification with the Aerospace Forces fleet (including in matters of preparation). will narrow the range of tasks performed by naval pilots ".

    I don't know if the author flew as a Naval Aviation pilot? Does he guess that its combat use has significant differences from the combat FBA, SHA and land-based IA? Crews fly over the sea much faster and more tired. In the Su-34, one crew member can rest even while lying down, go to the toilet and warm up food. Is this "criminal"? Oh well.

    In addition, the electronics of the Su-34 are already built according to the so-called. "open architecture", that is, it allows you to upgrade it an unlimited number of times. By the way, at the very beginning of the design of the Su-34, its naval modification was developed. Landing on aircraft carriers was envisaged, of course, not on Kuznetsov, but on a full-fledged ship of this type.

    The Su-34, in comparison with the Su-35, is less demanding on basing conditions and the state of the GDP. Compare the chassis and everything becomes clear. The Su-34 has an APU, the Su-35 does not. The Su-34, according to open data, weighs 3-4 tons more than the Su-35 payload. The volume of the tanks is larger. Aiming, guidance and electronic warfare equipment is richer in nomenclature. The "Platan" system is built into the aircraft; on other types it is suspended in the form of a container. And the armored titanium cockpit ...

    I'll tell you a big secret. There is a KBP for different types and types of aviation.
    For a fighter, strikes against ground and sea targets are always secondary. For bombers, the opposite is true.

    You will make bombers out of the Su-35 and their pilots, you will lose good fighters and you will not get good bombers. This is almost criminal.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 55
      +1
      When Wishlist is a violation of common sense and all other objective reasons ...
      To create a fleet of the open sea, you need so much, including. OF TIME that no one dares to do it yet.
      This is correct, not correct, the way it is, and how will you go on, is this a question?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 13: 30
      +6
      Quote: avia12005
      You will make bombers out of the Su-35 and their pilots, you will lose good fighters and you will not get good bombers.

      To paraphrase Henry Ford
      "The designers, wonderful guys, have created universal (multifunctional) airplanes. But genetics, these blabbering wiseacres, still cannot develop a breed of universal pilots ..."
    3. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 14: 18
      -4
      You will make bombers out of the Su-35 and their pilots, you will lose good fighters and you will not get good bombers. This is almost criminal.
      I think it is criminal to force one person to fly a plane. There should be three pilots. One for takeoff, one for landing, one for combat.
      After all, this bear can be taught to play a balalaika and ride a bicycle, and a soldier, by definition, is capable of performing only the narrowest range of tasks.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 17 March 2021 16: 54
        0
        And the fourth, to comment on the behavior of the aircraft.
    4. Orkraider
      Orkraider 18 March 2021 00: 15
      +4
      Quote: avia12005
      “The idea of ​​creating specialized naval vehicles based on front-line Su-34 bombers in my eyes looks almost criminal. Such a step will entail additional R&D, delay in the launch of production, lack of unification with the Aerospace Forces fleet (including in matters of preparation). will narrow the range of tasks performed by naval pilots ".

      I don't know if the author flew as a Naval Aviation pilot? Does he guess that its combat use has significant differences from the combat FBA, SHA and land-based IA? Crews fly over the sea much faster and more tired. In the Su-34, one crew member can rest even while lying down, go to the toilet and warm up food. Is this "criminal"? Oh well.

      In addition, the electronics of the Su-34 are already built according to the so-called. "open architecture", that is, it allows you to upgrade it an unlimited number of times. By the way, at the very beginning of the design of the Su-34, its naval modification was developed. Landing on aircraft carriers was envisaged, of course, not on Kuznetsov, but on a full-fledged ship of this type.

      The Su-34, in comparison with the Su-35, is less demanding on basing conditions and the state of the GDP. Compare the chassis and everything becomes clear. The Su-34 has an APU, the Su-35 does not. The Su-34, according to open data, weighs 3-4 tons more than the Su-35 payload. The volume of the tanks is larger. Aiming, guidance and electronic warfare equipment is richer in nomenclature. The "Platan" system is built into the aircraft; on other types it is suspended in the form of a container. And the armored titanium cockpit ...

      I'll tell you a big secret. There is a KBP for different types and types of aviation.
      For a fighter, strikes against ground and sea targets are always secondary. For bombers, the opposite is true.

      You will make bombers out of the Su-35 and their pilots, you will lose good fighters and you will not get good bombers. This is almost criminal.


      Greetings!
      hi
      Well said, I will subscribe to your every word.
      If you do not mind, I will add a little from myself.

      First:
      The FN, which the sailors tried to drag through, received a search and sighting system in addition to the usual set of avionics, which is now known as the "Sea Snake" and is installed on the Indian Il-38SD anti-submarine aircraft, and in a modified version with reduced capabilities - on the domestic Il-38 ... This means that the overwhelmed SU-34 could participate in anti-submarine operations, of course, this would not be the main task for him, but it would be possible to strengthen anti-submarine aviation with such aircraft.

      The second:
      For the use of heavy anti-ship missiles:
      The Su-34 initially has a reinforced structure / strong wing, under which heavy missiles can be placed.
      R.G. Martirosov was an ardent supporter of such modernization and confirmed the possibility of using the Onyx anti-ship missile system from the underwing suspension units, and with numbers. And this means that having finished the onyxes, we, and not the Indians with their Brahmos, would have had the Onyx in the MRA, and this is a massive volley of 44 missiles at full flight of the air regiment.
      By the way, the Indian Su-30 with difficulty and only after alteration drags BrahMos, one piece - and according to rumors, with a decrease in the resource.

      Third:
      I talked with the pilots who got on the "best plane", everyone notes that even after a long flight of 5-6 hours, normal performance and the possibility of further patrolling in the area are preserved.

      Fourth:
      The Su-32 FN was originally created for sailors, the Su-34 is mass-produced and it is not less than the Su-30SM in the Aerospace Forces, what problems with training are we talking about? And bringing the Su-34 for the needs of the fleet will take much less time and money than creating an aircraft based on the Su-35.

      I disagree with the author about the variation with the Su-35 and his attitude towards the Su-34.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 18 March 2021 01: 39
        +3
        Greetings! The author, unfortunately, has a distant understanding of military aviation, its types and types, and the peculiarities of combat use. To judge this simply by reading the performance characteristics is simply unreasonable. God grant that this approach does not begin to dominate in large offices)))
  • Tiksi-3
    Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 10: 49
    +5
    The basis of war is logistics the author writes, but shipping by sea is much cheaper and there are no obstacles, as in the case of flying through the airspace of neighboring states. So the Russian Navy - to be! It's just that for each of the fleets, there should be its own goals, objectives and composition. What is suitable for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic does not fit for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, this is exclusively my opinion, I may be wrong, but .... everywhere you need corvettes, frigates (TFR), minesweepers, MPL + diesel engines, but for the North and Pacific Fleet, Gorshkov M is already needed (a series, moreover, a sharpened both an attack version and an anti-aircraft missile defense) + Peter and his twin brother as a basis. And of course nuclear submarines in two versions: multipurpose + nuclear fist. Separately, for the Pacific Fleet, the presence of a pair of UDCs will not hurt ... but as Bashkirkhan correctly noted, the fleet needs a normal infrastructure. Well, Kuzya, of course, needs to be repaired and left in the Northern Fleet.
    And of course, you need to actively develop naval aviation ... and with this we also have seams ((
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 11: 33
      +6
      Dear Tiksi, let me note that I have repeatedly mentioned that the current ship composition must be preserved and strengthened, and, if possible, increased.

      So yes, the fleet should be. But he needs to revise the operational-strategic and operational-tactical concepts of construction and use.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 17 March 2021 11: 56
      +4
      Quote: Tiksi-3
      but for the North and the Pacific Fleet, Gorshkov M is already needed (a series, moreover, a sharpened both a shock version and an anti-aircraft missile defense)

      In my opinion, Gorshkov M (a series, moreover, a sharpened both an attack version and an anti-aircraft defense system) is also needed in the Black Sea Fleet ... it is expensive to drive from the North to Mediterranean on the BS!
      1. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 12: 03
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        In my opinion, Gorshkov M

        I agree, at least 4-6 units, it would also be appropriate for the UDC for the Black Sea Fleet, it would, in principle, be permanently in Tartus, together with Moscow (before decommissioning) and the four Gorshkovs M + four corvettes 20380 (5) + 4 (not existing) MPK + 4 minesweepers + 4 diesel men + the whole series of patrolmen "ala Bulls". And the supply would go on chartered civilian dry cargo ships under the supervision of patrolmen ... it would already resemble a combat-ready escadron
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 57
          +3
          Quote: Tiksi-3
          I agree, at least 4-6 units

          Reasonable answer!
      2. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 17 March 2021 13: 05
        +2
        With the development of weapons, the Mediterranean Sea turned into what the Baltic and the Black Sea were during WWII - in fact, an enclosed basin with no strategic prospects.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 13: 10
          +4
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          actually an indoor pool with no strategic perspectives.

          There's one prospect - traffic through Suez!
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 07
        -6
        Quote: Serg65
        needed for the Black Sea Fleet.

        what for? they will drown him there, the sea is all shot through and through, air defense can be deployed in the Crimea, but with planes or MPK ... and even more so since this ship is badly needed in Kamchatka and the Northern Fleet
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 17 March 2021 13: 10
          +3
          Quote: vladimir1155
          What for?

          So that you have something to write about!
    3. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 17 March 2021 12: 59
      -1
      I agree about the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet, but why do frigates on the Black Sea Fleet and BF? there and coastal complexes it is easy to complete all the tasks + aviation will help .. and the submarines in the Baltic are not sure what are needed, except for some "Babies" in a new version .. The distances and depths are not oceanic, but about the Baltic Fleet in general many times wrote that there is almost all of this sea, up and down in minutes, and artillery fire, including from the coast of "partners" and ours ..
      1. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 13: 13
        +4
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        and why do frigates on the Black Sea Fleet and BF?

        On the Black Sea Fleet, they are needed for the rotation of the operational squadron in the Mediterranean + balance with Turkey
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        BF why frigates at all? there and the coastal complexes it is easy to complete all tasks + aviation will help.

        I don't think so, Kaliningrad is one and two in the event of a local conflict-provocation to block the Balts from the sea
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 29
          -4
          Quote: Tiksi-3
          On the Black Sea Fleet, they are needed for the rotation of the operational squadron in the Mediterranean + balance with Turkey

          This operational squadron is eyewash for a purely peacetime, it is not a tenant in a war, but with the Turks, maybe we can break through in hockey or football? Why on par with them in conventional weapons? As for Kaliningrad, in the event of a war, the entire naval base is automatically destroyed from the Polish Gdynia, where the necessary funds are available on an ongoing basis ... understand, apart from your desires, there are also enemy capabilities .... As for Poland, it really does have coastal complexes. In the amount of two divisions located in Semirovts, fifty kilometers from Gdansk. Equipped with fifty Norwegian anti-ship missiles Naval Strike Missile, adopted by the Royal Norwegian Navy in 2007. Subsonic missile with a launch range of 180 km and a warhead weighing 120 kg. The time of arrival of the missile to the main naval base of the Baltic Fleet, located in Baltiysk, is 7,5 minutes.

          The Polish expert believes that if the coastal complexes are used correctly, the Russian fleet can be locked up in ports (not only in Baltiysk), depriving it of the opportunity to replenish its resources. Then proceed to the systematic destruction of the "bloodless" Russian ships.
          1. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 14: 46
            -1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            this operational squadron is eyewash for a purely peacetime, it is not a tenant in war

            and who is the tenant in the Russian-NATO war? ... what are you writing here? if you continue your, exclusively your logic, then troops are not needed at all, except for the Strategic Missile Forces and border guards ..... any seething ends with an exchange of nuclear clubs
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 23
              -3
              Quote: Tiksi-3
              and who is the tenant in the RF-NATO war?

              firstly, if we are talking about the fleet, then the nuclear submarines on duty have every chance not only to launch missiles, but to return to the base, main or reserve, secondly, there is the country's air defense, a significant part of enemy missiles can be destroyed, and mainly over Poland and Ukraine , Poles all know in general all suicide bombers in the event of a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, and now the inhabitants of Ukraine will all die in half an hour, because flying missiles, both NATO and Russian, almost all explode over Poland and Ukraine, creating a radiation buffer zone of scorched earth, but the Russians will be under air defense umbrella, and units of the RF Armed Forces, will also remain and begin to act against the enemy according to the situation .. By the way, locally, the air defense BAZ nuclear submarine may well disavow enemy strikes. But only if we abandon unnecessary and stupid ocean monsters in favor of the development of coastal aviation, coastal air defense and water control ships near the bases
              1. Tiksi-3
                Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 17: 47
                +3
                Quote: vladimir1155
                But only if we abandon unnecessary and stupid ocean monsters in favor of the development of coastal aviation, coastal air defense and water control ships near the bases

                you already refused at 91 ... now you want rubber boats instead of the Navy ... your noob phrases about base control ships are especially touching ... you are not interesting to me at all, as an expert in materiel you are below the waterline ... adios
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 50
                  -4
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  now you want rubber boats instead of the navy ..

                  do not lie frigates PLO and minesweepers from rubber do not, and nuclear submarines too ..... you are our expert
                  1. Tiksi-3
                    Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 17: 51
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    don't lie frigates PLO

                    Are you lying to name 1 PLO frigate? and you know your user trolling is a violation of the VO rules, would you like to receive it?
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 18: 01
                      -3
                      Quote: Tiksi-3
                      1 frigate PLO

                      in the Russian Navy, PLO provide (that is, they have means of searching for submarines for the following types of surface ships, 1135 (skr-frigate), 1155 (frigate), 1164, 1144, 11540 "Yastreb" (frigate)., Project 20380 corvette, etc., 11356 (frigate), as well as the MPK, so all frigates of the Russian Navy are ASW frigates with small means of self-defense, you can add close PLO 20380 corvettes, etc. not by ASW ships of the coastal zone, but due to the small number of ASW frigates and corvettes, all cruisers will also be attracted to the coastal area ASW in case of war
                      1. Tiksi-3
                        Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 18: 03
                        +3
                        fool wassat
                        I asked for the FRIGATE, not the TFR, the BOD and so on ... after all, you were a noob who wrote about frigates ...
                        you can not answer, you really do not understand either the essence or the materiel .... all for now, learn - come in
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 18: 06
                        -6
                        Large anti-submarine ships of project 1155 "Fregat" - NATO code Udaloy - a series of Soviet large anti-submarine ships (BOD) and Russian multipurpose frigates of the 1st rank with guided missile weapons of the far sea and ocean zones, according to NATO classification - destroyers (destroyers) of PLO. source https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80% D0% BE% D1% 82% D0% B8% D0% B2% D0% BE% D0% BB% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% BE% D1% 87% D0% BD% D1% 8B% D0% B5_% D0% BA% D0% BE% D1% 80% D0% B0% D0% B1% D0% BB% D0% B8_% D0% BF% D1% 80% D0% BE% D0% B5% D0% BA% D1% 82% D0% B0_1155

                        so apart from the lonely old man 1135 "Inquisitive" they are all officially frigates
                      3. Tiksi-3
                        Tiksi-3 17 March 2021 18: 11
                        +3
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        so apart from the lonely old man 1135 "Inquisitive" they are all officially frigates

                        sit down two! for a complete lack of knowledge! and goodbye!
                      4. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 18: 14
                        -5
                        Quote: Tiksi-3
                        complete lack of knowledge! and goodbye!

                        you fell in an unequal battle and shamefully fled from the battlefield, the ability to make a good face in a bad game ... not me, but the designers and Wikipedia calls 1155 a frigate ... goodbye ...
                      5. Sandor Clegane
                        Sandor Clegane 17 March 2021 18: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        not me, but the designers and Wikipedia calls 1155 a frigate

                        frigates in the Russian Navy only the Gorshkov series and all + M. Shaposhnikov former BOD wink
  • Serg65
    Serg65 17 March 2021 13: 16
    +4
    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
    on the Black Sea Fleet and BF why do frigates at all?

    On the BF it may not be necessary ... and the Black Sea Fleet has been the base fleet for the Mediterranean grouping for the last 50 years!
    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
    there is almost all this sea, up and down in minutes, and artillery fire, including from the coast of "partners" and ours ..

    Well .... control over the Baltic and the straits on whom shall we entrust?
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 17 March 2021 13: 29
      0
      Well, if we are talking about a strike fleet (although we would have a full-fledged defensive fleet to begin with with minesweepers, OVR, etc.), and not defensive, you are partly right, but .. what questions arise:
      1. If there is a turmoil with NATO - what is the strength of the fleet in the Black / Mediterranean Sea to keep and why is it there, in fact, what are the goals? If, when we again become comparable in strength to "partners", then it probably makes sense, although I'm not sure anyway .. The location is shot from the ground, water and air ..
      2. Over the Baltic? Are you sure that the bases of the Baltic Fleet and the ships in them are more protected and reliable than the coastal troops? I'm not really .. the topic of this was discussed on VO-that almost with art from Poland you can hit the base ..
      In general, I, too, for the five aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet + everything else, but the article I understood about the real directions of development for today, and not about what would be good at all ...
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 17 March 2021 14: 28
        +4
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        if we talk about the strike fleet

        What is your concept of "strike fleet"?
        Farther..
        1. Nikolay, what was Sweden like for Germany? The main blood artery! It was to intercept this artery that the Baltic Fleet was created in the 20th century! What is the Suez Canal for Europe? The main blood artery! It was to protect this artery that Israel was created, it was to intercept this artery that the Soviet 5th OpEsk was created! And it is for this that the Tartus + Khmeimim tandem is now being created! And the Black Sea Fleet was and remains a rear base for the Mediterranean. Under the Union, a large group of BODs and the largest group of auxiliary ships in the entire Soviet Navy was based in Sevastopol!
        2. If we consider participation in a future war only by the ships of the Baltic Fleet without the participation of the Aerospace Forces and ground forces, then yes .... I agree, the Baltic Fleet will not survive! But it won't, what do you think? Positions for example ACS M109A6 should be no more than 30 km from Baltiysk. ACS Coalition-SV has a firing range of 80 km. The question is ... is it worth dragging artillery to the border if it is covered after the first salvo? And will our ships calmly stand at the pier awaiting shelling?
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        I, too, for the heels of aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet + everything

        And aircraft carriers are only there and needed!
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        I understand the article about the real directions of development for today

        I do not consider the article as a real direction of development at all, these are reflections of an ordinary citizen on a topic that is popular today .... and that's it!
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 25
      -2
      Quote: Serg65
      Well .... control over the Baltic and the straits on whom shall we entrust?

      for aircraft, coastal complexes, and submarines at the Black Sea Fleet
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 10: 52
    +2
    And why, in fact, is the author against "strategic anti-submarine" aircraft?
    No, it is understandable, Tu - 160 in the role of PLO is nonsense.
    But you can't fight much with fighters alone.
    We need planes that could patrol distant approaches for days, or even better, drones that would hang on the tail of each AUG for months, continuously giving out its current coordinates and broadcasting all their radio signals.
    Although, what I mean is fantastic.
    We cannot even master the old Soviet Il-114, not to mention the Il-76 or the new Il-112. But what is there, the simplest corn plant cannot be renewed in any way,
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 11: 30
      +4
      Dear Jacket, I have repeatedly emphasized in the text what is necessary comprehensive development of naval aviation.

      However, I apologize - perhaps the accent was insufficient.

      Striking forces, in my vision, are something that the country can begin to form right now (there is a backlog). But with everything else, the situation is more complicated - although it is fixable, and must be corrected!
      1. KKND
        KKND 17 March 2021 11: 40
        +2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        all-round development of naval aviation.

        The development of naval aviation is wonderful, but how can you block trade with the allies for the Americans? This is more of a defensive concept in which the Americans can attack without much fear for their ports, overseas bases, colonies, etc. Moreover, this concept allows them to look for places to strike indefinitely.
        1. Anzhey V.
          17 March 2021 12: 22
          +1
          Operational-tactical tasks of this kind (raids on enemy sea communications) are not yet available not only to our Navy, but even to the Chinese.

          There is no point in talking about them: we have a number of much more pressing problems.

          And no, you are wrong - in limited and confined waters, the stake on the all-round development of naval aviation will make it possible to successfully conduct offensive operations. In more complex theaters, it will provide the defense of the BMZ or the coast, which in itself is not bad.
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 11: 50
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Striking forces, in my vision, are something that the country can begin to form right now (there is a backlog). But with everything else, the situation is more complicated - although it is fixable, and must be corrected!

        About the strike forces from the Su35 you have already been answered a little higher.
        And about everything else, yes, it must be corrected, but this is a fantasy, the same as an aircraft carrier, "Leader" and other projections.
  • nonsense
    nonsense 17 March 2021 11: 04
    +4
    In such conditions, "rocket gunboats" (like Buyan-M) do not just get the "green light" to the detriment of larger and more functional ships. By no means, the concept of their use (to throw a cruise missile from point A to point B at a distance of 1,5 kilometers to the bad guys and change their location using river routes) is quite clear to the top management.

    here I am an amateur, but I still DO NOT understand, is it really necessary to place these missiles on ships? - There are cars! Anyway, KamAZ is easier to disguise and it will change its location faster ... Yes, even a railway carriage with missiles has clear advantages in terms of stealth maneuvering and mobility compared to MRK of the "Buyan" type (be it damned ...)!
    1. KKND
      KKND 17 March 2021 11: 34
      +3
      Quote: nespich
      here I am an amateur, but I still DO NOT understand, is it really necessary to place these missiles on ships? - There are cars! Anyway, KamAZ is easier to disguise and it will change its location faster ...

      Previously, under the INF Treaty, such missiles could not be deployed on land (it is possible on water and in the air). Now it is already possible to push into Kamaz trucks, but they have already built it. recourse
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 17 March 2021 11: 45
        0
        what exactly! Remembered! EMNIP still under the contract (I don't remember which one) nuclear missiles were removed from surface ships. This made the Soviet fleet an invalid ...
        1. mik193
          mik193 17 March 2021 12: 09
          0
          There was an agreement even under Gorbachev, it seems in 1991, then nuclear torpedoes were removed from submarines.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 17 March 2021 11: 36
      0
      Quote: nespich
      here I am an amateur, but I still DO NOT understand

      INF Treaty
      1. S. Viktorovich
        S. Viktorovich 17 March 2021 12: 04
        +1
        With this INF Treaty, the "partners" of the Russian leadership were simply littered with suckers. They were forced to actually build "rocket boats" in accordance with this treaty, and then they got out of it.
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 17 March 2021 12: 19
      +2
      Quote: nespich
      Anyway, KamAZ is easier to disguise and it will change its location faster ... Yes, even a railway carriage with missiles has clear advantages in terms of stealth maneuvering and mobility compared to MRK of the "Buyan" type (be it damned ...)!

      A KAMAZ with a wagon is also possible. But in order to at least partially disrupt the logistics of the US Armed Forces, in which case, they need to be in Kaliningrad and Sevastopol .... only from there with KAMAZ and the car you can get to Amsterdam, Brest and Naples ... Marseille, Rota and Lisbon, you already you will not get it.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 17 March 2021 11: 35
    +3
    Very good and correct article. I would only add to the tasks of aviation the provision of search and rescue operations, so that the pilots do not feel abandoned in an accident. Still, an airplane or helicopter can travel for several hours where the sea rescuer or our nearest ship can go for several days, especially in the North or the Pacific Fleet.
    We also have islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers. Even more - whole archipelagos. ZFI, Kuriles, Sakhalin, where the railway ferry goes.
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 13: 59
      +2
      Thank you Galleon!

      I fully agree with you regarding our islands - these are clearly missed military opportunities.
  • BAI
    BAI 17 March 2021 11: 40
    +3
    We read the military doctrine of Russia:
    10. Major military threats:

    a) a sharp aggravation of the military-political situation (interstate relations) and the creation of conditions for the use of military force;

    b) obstructing the work of the state and military control systems of the Russian Federation, the disruption of the functioning of its strategic nuclear forces, missile attack warning systems, control of outer space, nuclear ammunition storage facilities, nuclear energy, nuclear, chemical industry and other potentially dangerous objects;

    c) the creation and training of illegal armed formations, their activities in the territory of the Russian Federation or in the territories of its allies;

    d) demonstration of military force in the course of the exercise in the territories adjacent to the Russian Federation or its allies with provocative purposes;

    e) activization of the activities of the armed forces of individual states (groups of states) with partial or full mobilization, transfer of state and military authorities of these states to work in wartime conditions.

    There is NO threat from the sea!
    Conclusion - the participation of the fleet in repelling military threats is not envisaged .. Consequently, its necessity is secondary.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 11: 56
      -1
      Quote: BAI
      There is NO threat from the sea!

      Well, what is that then?
      obstruction of the work of the systems of state and military administration of the Russian Federation, disruption of the functioning of its strategic nuclear forces, missile attack warning systems, space control, storage facilities for nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear, chemical industry and other potentially hazardous facilities

      d) demonstration of military force during exercises in the territories of states adjacent to the Russian Federation or its allies for provocative purposes;

      Any American destroyer or submarine that approaches our shores closer than 2000 km is a hundred or two cruise missiles reaching our critical infrastructure, or interceptors that weaken our possible response.
      And this is not to mention the obvious threat to the existence of our SSBNs both at sea and in bases.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 12: 20
        -1
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Any American destroyer or submarine that approached our shores closer than 2000 km is a hundred or two cruise missiles reaching our critical infrastructure,

        the critical infrastructure is far from the oceans, and the cruise of a destroyer to the Black or Baltic Sea is not needed it is easier to deliver these missiles to Poland by trucks or to Bulgaria, so the approach of a destroyer is dangerous only for nuclear submarine bases, controlling the Baltic is useless, the Black Sea can be tried, but rather By coastal means of coastal aviation and submarines, like the Sea of ​​Japan, the main thing remains ... that is, control of surface ships, coupled with coastal aviation, is necessary only in the zones around Petropavlovsk and the Barents Sea.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 12: 31
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          to control the Baltic by the fleet is useless, the Black Sea can be tried, but rather by coastal means of coastal aviation and submarines like the Sea of ​​Japan,

          Those. submarines are still needed, it turns out.
          Isn't that the navy?
          And the aviation cannot constantly control the water area, the plane has flown and it is gone. And a ship, whether surface or underwater, can be on duty for a day, or a week, or even a month.
          Well, about Murmansk and Kamchatka, you yourself agreed - the fleet is needed.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 12: 56
            -2
            Quote: Jacket in stock
            Those. submarines are still needed, it turns out.
            Isn't that the navy?
            And the aviation cannot constantly control the water area, the plane has flown and it is gone. And a ship, whether surface or underwater, can be on duty for a day, or a week, or even a month.

            Well, I'm actually a fan of submarines and in general a former sailor officer, the fleet is definitely needed, how can you deny that? and the SSBN is generally the longest hand. the question of the fact that in closed waters, surface ships of the first and second rank are absolutely not needed, only the third rank and then in small numbers. And the bases of the nuclear submarine must be covered with corvettes and ASW frigates. minesweepers. Regarding duty, imagine a radius of 1000 km around the base of the submarine, the perimeter will turn out to be 3000 km; it is physically impossible to cover it with ships on duty, You can use underwater sensors, you can patrol by PLO aircraft, surface corvettes and frigates only patrol, or go out on a signal of danger, for this purpose aircraft convenient.
      2. BAI
        BAI 17 March 2021 12: 42
        -1
        d) demonstration of military force during the exercise in the territories adjacent to the Russian Federation

        Well, you sharpen the phrase: "territories" - land, and not "waters" - the sea.
        In the first paragraph, everything that you have highlighted, what does it have to do with the fleet? Or a fleet to a dedicated one? This is all the ground forces decide. And the role of the enemy fleet in striking these targets is secondary. The fleet is needed where the enemy cannot surrender, i.e. technically lagging behind. There is no price for aircraft carriers here. And it is not at all necessary to strike back at the ship. Much better - according to the base from which the ship left, and even better - in the center of the decision to use the ship. And the fleet is absolutely unnecessary here.
        And this is not to mention the obvious threat to the existence of our SSBNs both at sea and in bases.

        How much is the SSBN and how much is the Yars regiment? Or one "Well done" from which the States are really shaking?
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 12: 58
          +3
          Quote: BAI
          In the first paragraph, all that you have highlighted, what does it have to do with the fleet?

          Immediate. For example, our submarine bases, what are they if not our strategic nuclear forces?
          Ports, even commercial ports, are all strategically important objects and storage places ... remember Beirut, at least.
          Quote: BAI
          And the role of the enemy fleet in striking these targets is secondary.

          Well, as for me, it's the other way around. And I have already explained this - a couple of submarines or destroyer heels throw axes drains, no missile defense can skip, and they don't need to be dragged to Poland or Bulgaria by trucks, they will quietly sail when necessary and where necessary, even directly to St. Petersburg.
          1. BAI
            BAI 17 March 2021 14: 22
            -2
            We read the Doctrine again, only this time point 41:
            41. The tasks of equipping the Armed Forces and other troops with weapons, military and special equipment:

            a) complex equipment (re-equipment) of modern models of armaments, military and special equipment of strategic nuclear forces, formations and military units of permanent readiness of general-purpose forces, anti-terrorist units, military engineering units and road-building military units, as well as their maintenance providing their combat use;

            b) the creation of multifunctional (multipurpose) weapons, military and special equipment using unified components;

            c) development of forces and means of information confrontation;

            d) qualitative improvement of information exchange tools based on the use of modern technologies and international standards, as well as a single information field of the Armed Forces and other troops as part of the information space of the Russian Federation;

            e) ensuring the functional and organizational-technical unity of the weapons systems of the Armed Forces and other troops;

            e) the creation of new types of precision weapons and the development of their information support;

            g) the creation of basic information management systems and their integration with weapons control systems and complexes of automation equipment for control bodies of strategic, operational-strategic, operational, operational-tactical and tactical levels.

            No fleet. He is beyond Russia's means.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 15: 10
              +1
              Quote: BAI
              No fleet. He is beyond Russia's means.

              The doctrine that you are citing (while interpreting it completely erroneously) is from 2014. Read the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On Approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Activities for the Period up to 2030"
              Questions will disappear by themselves
              1. BAI
                BAI 17 March 2021 15: 48
                -1
                1. Nobody canceled the doctrine.
                2. These tasks were repeated by Putin at one of the NSC meetings at the end of last year. Under the TV cameras.
                3. If we wanted to finance the fleet, there would be no such articles and discussions.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 16: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: BAI
                  1. Nobody canceled the doctrine.

                  I can say it again. The doctrine that you are citing and the Decree to which I referred do not contradict each other in any way. The problem is solely in your understanding of the provisions of the Doctrine, and nothing else.
                  Quote: BAI
                  If we wanted to fund the fleet, there would be no these articles and discussions.

                  In fact, it is financed. And discussion articles because the funding is not what it should be
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey 17 March 2021 15: 02
          0
          The states do not shake either from SSBNs, or from Yars, or from Molodets, they take into account their existence and no more, just as we do not shake from their strategic nuclear forces.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 17 March 2021 12: 10
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      Conclusion - the participation of the fleet in repelling military threats is not envisaged.

      You are too categorical because you have rested on the letter of this doctrine. Look at the DB in Syria realistically - isn't the navy involved? The lion's share of the supply, one might say, is on landing ships and naval support ships.
      1. BAI
        BAI 17 March 2021 12: 47
        0
        isn’t the fleet involved in them

        Real participation - only from the large landing ships, which were entrusted with the supply task. And in Syria, not a war - a military conflict. In the event of a real war, not a single Russian warship will be able to enter the Mediterranean to begin with. And if it enters, it will be immediately destroyed. The task of delivering goods and combat operations (actions aimed at destroying the enemy) are two different things.
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 17 March 2021 15: 05
          0
          Sucks you know the story, even the closest one, it was the fleet that did not give the opportunity in 2012. from hatching Syria with the 6th fleet.
          1. BAI
            BAI 17 March 2021 15: 53
            0
            And you can also remember how our patrol hull received an American in the Black Sea.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 15: 08
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      We read the military doctrine of Russia:

      I don’t understand at all how you read it. The threat from the sea corresponds to item (a) and item (b) and item (e)
      1. BAI
        BAI 17 March 2021 15: 50
        -1
        Only in terms of participation in the nuclear triad. Anything related to nuclear weapons is necessary. The rest is not.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 16: 09
          +1
          Quote: BAI
          Only in terms of participation in the nuclear triad.

          answered below
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 11: 44
    -1
    I fully support the respected A Voskresensky, the all-round development of coastal aviation and the rejection of both the MRK and the aircraft carrier destroyer mindless monsters in favor of corvettes flatly located near the bases of the naval
    1. Anzhey V.
      17 March 2021 13: 07
      +3
      Thank you, Vladimir!

      However, I would correct you - ships of the "frigate" class should be made the basis of the surface fleet.

      This brings with it more economic and military feasibility.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 13: 14
        -2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        the basis of the surface fleet should be ships of the "frigate" class

        I agree, by the way, Admiral Makarov wrote about this, but a modern corvette is like a small frigate with the same functions, but cheaper, although I agree that in the future it is necessary to choose generally one project of an ASW surface warship and only to do it
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 17 March 2021 15: 07
      +1
      And as a result, die with his family at home, from a stray ax from a distant Burke.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 30
        -2
        Quote: Ryusey
        from a stray ax from a distant Burke.

        justify
  • Your stranger
    Your stranger 17 March 2021 11: 46
    +1
    It is very alarming that there are no drills and anti-submarine, there are no modern torpedoes,
    But at the same time, the excellent fighting qualities of the su 35 and high-precision weapons,
    As for me, it is necessary to check and recheck this high-precision and fighting qualities,
    And ships are needed with powerful air defense, and drlo helicopters of the Ka 31 type on board,
    But in Russia there are 2 of them,
    And in china 9,
    And in india 14,
    And we also need helicopter carriers, with a dozen anti-submarine helicopters and 4-6 drills,
    And the backbone of the group should be from a helicopter carrier, several air defense ships,
    And include the rest as needed,
    By the way, if such a group goes, then 2-4 diesel submarines can be included in it,
    There is something to ditch the submarine while charging the batteries,
    And when necessary, the submarines will cover the group,
  • iouris
    iouris 17 March 2021 12: 01
    0
    Let it be. But hope not.
  • mik193
    mik193 17 March 2021 12: 05
    +3
    No one denies the role of aviation in modern warfare. But at the same time, the fleet cannot do without the ship's composition. Too while aviation is dependent in particular on the weather. There is still not enough funds - actions in the near sea zone. Anti-aircraft missile defense, anti-aircraft missile defense, anti-aircraft missile defense, reconnaissance of all types, anti-amphibious defense - this is the minimum range of tasks for ships and submarines, yes, with the support of naval aviation. And of course, the basing system, ship repair and shipyards at each theater of operations.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 17 March 2021 12: 07
    0
    There is an important maritime theater of operations, where aviation is of little use in any form (the Arctic Ocean).
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 17 March 2021 12: 19
      +1
      Quote: S. Viktorovich
      There is an important maritime theater of operations, where aviation is of little use in any form (the Arctic Ocean).

      Either the Americans brought their bombers to Norway.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 31
      -2
      Quote: S. Viktorovich
      Arctic Ocean

      there is even less sense from surface ships, only submarines
  • Kushka
    Kushka 17 March 2021 12: 44
    +1
    Trotsky applauds in his grave.
    All big ships are on pins and needles!
    50 Karakurt - our everything - as they swooped in,
    and fled. Again "benefactor"
    counted, half of them will be killed and not a pity.
    Just think, boatmen, this is not a crew for you
    cruisers with an aircraft link. That's where they go.
    EXPAND ADVANCED NAVY EXPERIENCE
    FOR ALL KINDS OF AIRCRAFT!
    Why do we need tank troops! How much does Armata cost?
    50 ATGMs with ATGM - both swooped in and scattered.
    There are Polish horsemen with lances in 15 minutes. 184 tanks were killed!
    Half will be killed - well, God bless them - how long is this ATV
    worth a penny? And there are a lot of ready-made motorcyclists in our villages.
    We'll get to aviation too - why do we need these mastodons
    TU-160, Il 72.
    We rivet drones and hang gliders - as they swooped in,
    and scattered. Half in the dust, yes, although it is still
    You can rivet with a cheap price.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 17: 35
      -1
      Quote: Kushka
      Trotsky applauds in his grave.
      All big ships are on pins and needles!

      do not distort, there has already been a consensus of all adequate specialists, submarines are needed, PLO aircraft and frigates, minesweepers, everyone agrees about the erroneousness of RTOs, a dispute about battleships that no one needs under the guise of destroyers and aircraft carriers, and there is still no dispute of empty money for them
      1. Kushka
        Kushka 17 March 2021 18: 27
        0
        Accepted, I will no longer. However, I will note (because of harm).
        1. You and I are in the company. We keep the brand, we go around "in a controlled drift"
        competitors, we keep our teeth in the ranking for our place and won
        a piece of the market for years ... And then a new top management comes in and announces-
        there is no money, we will not EARN money, we will SAVE.
        And to hell with a piece of the market, a place in the rating and in general the whole status
        company as one of the leaders.
        The question is, why do we need such a top manager who CANNOT EARN,
        but he only knows how to SAVE (not to earn money, we could live poorly without him).

        2. My father left the garden in good condition, with clients all over the country,
        I can’t do anything, I just cut out old trees every year,
        I don't breed new varieties, the garden has decayed, incomes have fallen, soon in general
        I will switch to the firewood trade. And instead of me, the Turks and the Poles filled up
        the whole market with fruit and were going to buy themselves an F-35
        Question: Is there a problem with the garden, or a problem with me?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 18: 47
          0
          Quote: Kushka
          Question: Is there a problem with the garden, or a problem with me?

          this goes beyond the scope of the topic, but I will answer, if a person is religious, child-loving, industrious with many children, faithful to his wife, fasting according to the charter (now, by the way, great fast), then his garden and yard and field are in order, and if he renounced God, he left his wife, he killed children by abortion, he is drunk, but wants lace panties like in Europ ... what will he have with the field with the garden? first you need to remove the chaos in their heads, and then it will leave the court industry ... here too there are such ... they have grievances, then insults, but in essence they cannot connect two words, they do not respect logic, ... what kind of will a garden grow?
          1. Kushka
            Kushka 17 March 2021 19: 08
            0
            It turns out that it noticeably goes beyond your limits and is clearly visible
            in which direction (appreciated your restraint).
            I just can't imagine, and I don't want to imagine
            the fleet in which the most qualified QC is the frigate commander,
            and there are less than a dozen of those.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 20: 14
              -1
              well
              Quote: Kushka
              I just can't imagine, and I don't want to imagine
              fleet

              well, not a frigate, but an RPKSN, ... everything flows, everything changes, there were sailing ships, then the battleships came the time of frigates, it’s not a matter of pride and habits, but in a combat mission
              1. Kushka
                Kushka 17 March 2021 21: 53
                +1
                do not distort, there has already been a consensus of all adequate specialists, we need submarines, aircraft and frigates

                Take Voenno-Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, No. 3 1990, p. 52.
                NOTE ABOUT THE FLEET, Narkomsi E.S. Panzerzhansky, 18.11.1921
                (full déjà vu with the material under discussion, including with
                previous (see links in the text) on this issue)
                In view of this, I do not quote the text of the note (if you want, you will find it).
                I will quote Trotsky's visa on 28.11.1921/XNUMX/XNUMX .:
                "I fundamentally disagree with this project.
                I am a supporter of the creation of the Main Directorate of the coastal
                defense (GUBO). LIQUIDIZE LARGE SHIPS,
                mine carriers and PADS with attachment to them
                STRONG HYDROAVIATION to develop continuously.
                GUBO subordinate the RVSR and the command for the same
                grounds that the Main Directorate of the Air
                fleet. Put a prominent communist at the head of the GUBO. "

                QUESTION: Are your "adequate specialists" from 1921?
                Trotskyists? Well, after all, a complete deja vu!
                I would have opposed this approach even in 1990!
                And today is 2021 !!!
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 17 March 2021 22: 20
                  0
                  "It is often said that for the above-mentioned main task of the fleet - defense of the Baltic coast - it is enough to have mine ships and submarines and that large combat ships are not needed." Admiral Krylov 1912
                2. Kushka
                  Kushka 17 March 2021 22: 46
                  0
                  Once again, you read the Narkomsi of 1921 - Roman Skomorokhov
                  one to one - deja vu (Yaroslavna's cry)
                  You read "adequate specialists" - Trotsky alone
                  to one - deja vu.
                  So it’s 1921! The end of the civil! There are no men
                  no bread, no HORSES! Devastation!
                  A young, just created state!
                  I will say so, the happiness of "adequate specialists",
                  that KK Varyag, Peter, Kuzi, their mouths are "tied".
                  Larry Chambers do not appear in the hospital,
                  and even VMU does not "make" such, even if they
                  finish three in a row. They are made great
                  ships and it takes many years. And to break-
                  do not build. Although .... if you drive boats,
                  armed with toilets, under the bridge, you're right
                  will do well.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 March 2021 13: 04
    +1
    It is a fact that it is real and economically profitable to modify the current and future air complexes to perform purely naval strike missions! What is the supremacy of aviation at sea was really shown by German aviation in the Black Sea in the last war. The Germans terrorized the Black Sea Fleet, even without having a serious fleet there, only with aviation.
    But, of course, this does not mean that, as under Khrushchev, "to cut the cruisers and not build new ones" crying .
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 17 March 2021 14: 00
      -1
      What cruisers were slaughtered under Khrushchev? Artillery analogue nets, they shouldn't have been cut in the late 50s?
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 17 March 2021 13: 47
    +2
    - Separation and geographical remoteness of theaters of naval operations.
    - Poor development of the naval infrastructure.
    - The unwillingness of the industry to ensure the construction of large series of ships with an effective composition of weapons.
    - Lack of adequate concepts and strategies for the creation and use of the fleet.
    - The presence of a local preponderance of the forces of potential adversaries over the Russian Navy.

    Add:
    - the lack of unhindered access to the world ocean from those bases where there is a shipbuilding / ship repair industry and unhindered communications for its supply.
    - all bases or potential locations for bases with a more or less suitable climate are located in the area of ​​operation of ground tactical aviation of possible opponents, and in the area of ​​destruction by cruise missiles from URO destroyers.
    Therefore, it is clear that the construction of "naval power" in Russia must both begin and end with land-based aviation, moreover, starting with a tactical universal aircraft that can operate both as fighters and bombers. The takeoff weights of Su roughly correspond to the takeoff weights of strategic bombers of the Second World War with crews of ~ 10 people. But, as user squid wrote earlier, aircraft types are a secondary issue. I think a balance is needed between different types of aviation. The danger here is that the aviation of possible opponents may turn out to be superior (due to "stealth", AWACS, electronics, massive attacks from destroyers and fast aircraft carriers, etc.), airfields are destroyed or captured and used in their own interests. But war is always a confrontation. Better not to bring it to her. No.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 17 March 2021 13: 51
    +2
    Let's take a look at the experience of the Union. For a long time judging and rowing, he came to the conclusion that the Orlan project would be the best solution. This is COMPROMISE! Those. the optimal element of a battle fortress on the okiyane sea. And you just need to understand that we will not invent anything else: these are the minimum mass-dimensions to create a point of inaccessibility anywhere on the sea surface. And we must try to preserve and increase the cruisers of this class. Each Eagle also needs to be given from 3 to 6 Cephalopods and 1 Ka-31. All other marine subspecies, except submarines, are defense.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • DMi
    DMi 17 March 2021 14: 15
    -4
    Why is the A-100 for the fleet, if recently there was news everywhere that Liana was finished and finished? What can the A-100 do on the seas and oceans that Liana cannot?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 15: 02
      +4
      Quote: DMi
      What can the A-100 do on the seas and oceans that Liana cannot?

      The AWACS aircraft can constantly monitor the movement of enemy aircraft and ships in the area. The satellite cannot do this (unless it is located on the geostationary. Liana is not located). The AWACS aircraft can carry out the identification of "friend or foe". The satellite cannot. The modern AWACS aircraft has great electronic reconnaissance capabilities. Liana's satellites are divided - one for RTR, the second for active radar, but they do not go in pairs. Knowing the satellite's orbit, it can be shot down, and we cannot prevent this. We can protect the AWACS aircraft, at least in theory. The enemy, knowing the orbits of our satellites (and he knows as well as we - them) can evade detection without entering the satellite control sector. Such a number will not work with an AWACS aircraft. The AWACS aircraft can be lifted into the air and brought to the desired area when necessary, that is, it can adjust to the deployment of the strike forces. The satellite cannot do this, here it is necessary for the strike forces to adapt to the time of its flight, which can be very critical.
      It's enough?
      1. DMi
        DMi 17 March 2021 16: 55
        -2
        An interesting target designation system that cannot determine "friend or foe"))
        Why then does Shoigu say that this is the highest priority task now? This is it about Liana)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 March 2021 19: 23
          +2
          Quote: DMi
          An interesting target designation system that cannot determine "friend or foe"))

          Well, try to do it from space :))))
          Quote: DMi
          Why then does Shoigu say that this is the highest priority task now? This is it about Liana)

          What kind of youthful maximalism? For the rest of the tasks, now what, can you score, in your opinion? If Liana could solve all the issues of the A-100, then the program for creating an AWACS aircraft would be curtailed.
          1. DMi
            DMi 17 March 2021 22: 34
            -2
            Youthful maximalism is evident in Shoigu. I just quoted his words.
            How will an AWACS aircraft filter US warships from dozens of civilian ships? Or from the warships of India, for example? Apparently, the satellite will work in about the same way. If it is possible at all.
            And about the shooting down of Liana's satellite in orbit. Reserve declared, apparently just for such a case.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 March 2021 06: 27
              +2
              Quote: DMi
              Youthful maximalism is evident in Shoigu.

              Shoigu has nothing to do with it. He said
              Maintaining the orbital constellation of spacecraft, as well as its creation is the most important state task

              But the uselessness of all other tasks is your personal conclusion from the words of Shoigu :))))
              Quote: DMi
              Reserve declared, apparently just for such a case.

              After the launch of the satellite, its orbit is tracked, as well as its transitions to other orbits.
              1. DMi
                DMi 18 March 2021 09: 57
                0
                I did not draw any conclusions and did not assert anything. I just asked questions. If you saw some conclusions somewhere, then only your own, I have nothing to do with it.
                There are hundreds of satellites in orbit. It is impossible to find out which of them are working in the liana, while they are in reserve and disabled. So we need to immediately shoot everything down and shoot everyone down. Does anyone have such opportunities?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 March 2021 10: 54
                  0
                  Quote: DMi
                  If you saw some conclusions somewhere, then only your own, I have nothing to do with it.

                  No question, and what are your conclusions? :))))
                  Quote: DMi
                  There are hundreds of satellites in orbit. It is impossible to find out which of them work in the liana

                  It is easy to recognize it. Liana is based on active radar reconnaissance satellites, which can be easily identified by their own radiation. This is not counting other ways to determine the purpose of the satellite.
                  In general, in the modern world, many terrorists have already learned to "dodge" reconnaissance satellites (they operate at a time when the satellite is not observing the territory).
                  1. DMi
                    DMi 18 March 2021 12: 22
                    0
                    I have no conclusions. I'm just trying to figure it out. Although I have a preliminary general conclusion. Judging by the fact that no one knew anything about the new types of strategic weapons until Putin spoke about them publicly. Judging by the fact that no one knew anything about the armature and su57 until the moment they were shown on Central TV. Judging by the fact that no one could have imagined that the Russian troops would end up in Syria, Crimea and Georgia. It can be concluded that real plans, real equipment and its performance characteristics are able to hide very effectively, as well as strategic development plans. And the "public" opinion is always late about twenty steps from reality and the nearest future.
                    I think there is already a solution for the fleet, and development plans, and they have already been launched. But they are not made public. Someday they will put before a fact.
                    And the backup satellite is for that and the reserve, that does not emit anything and pretends to photograph forests in the taiga. And you will not identify him in any way until he receives the command to turn on and change the orbit. Well, I imagine so Delitanian,
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 18 March 2021 16: 08
              0
              Quote: DMi
              How will an AWACS aircraft filter US warships from dozens of civilian ships? Or from the warships of India, for example?

              Just like the ground brigades, osnaz receive information from the Il-20M, and then analyze all the radiation of the warship, including the HF radio networks, and lead the entire group of ships from the very beginning of the cruise. Moreover, there is also the GRU General Staff's Zvezda system, information from which the naval forces in the General Staff have the opportunity to receive if they deem it necessary, and besides this, the fleet intelligence department has information not only from its satellites, but also from other reconnaissance satellites. So, when conducting integrated reconnaissance, it is not difficult to distinguish between warships and civilians - even by the ship's air defense radars.
              1. DMi
                DMi 18 March 2021 16: 43
                0
                Well, it means "Liana" can do the same. It catches the radiation of ships in the same way and receives the signature of each ship from its radars. Isn't it?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 18 March 2021 17: 26
                  0
                  Quote: DMi
                  Well, it means "Liana" can do the same. It catches the radiation of ships in the same way and receives the signature of each ship from its radars. Isn't it?

                  Did anyone doubt it?
                  According to open data, the Liana ICRC must solve the problems of passive radio-technical and active radar reconnaissance, for which it has two types of satellites.
                  https://topwar.ru/180699-mkrc-liana-v-processe-razvertyvanija.html
                  1. DMi
                    DMi 18 March 2021 19: 55
                    0
                    Yes, there were doubts above that Liana is able to sort targets by friend or foe.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 18 March 2021 20: 28
                      0
                      Quote: DMi
                      Yes, there were doubts above that Liana is able to sort targets by friend or foe.

                      Reconnaissance satellites could identify various types of radiation as early as the seventies. It is strange that someone could doubt that even now they know how to do it.
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 17 March 2021 19: 39
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The AWACS aircraft can constantly monitor the movement of enemy aircraft and ships in the area.

        There are no planes, but there are no ships. Radar of the wrong system. We need full-fledged Poseidon-type PLO aircraft.
  • Niko
    Niko 17 March 2021 14: 47
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: vvvjak
    Py.Sy. As we now say, "the feeling is not those", from the article

    Soon mine will be released on the same topic (already posted, but so far it is under moderation). Although there are also many controversial points

    But this is good news.
  • Niko
    Niko 17 March 2021 14: 52
    +1
    Putting all your eggs in one basket is very, very dangerous, especially in our time, when one breakthrough technology can devalue what has been done for many years. And with all the advantages of aviation, right now its position in the theater of operations is very questionable. Yes, and "gain dominance in the air "we can only within line of sight from the shore, even in case of success
  • Operator
    Operator 17 March 2021 16: 47
    -3
    What is the use of opposing the paid opus of Gidromayor Klimov and the outskirts of Timokhin.
    1. Lirik R
      Lirik R 19 March 2021 12: 58
      0
      why is Timokhin a Ukrainian?
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 March 2021 15: 45
        -2
        In his comments, he made typical Okrainsk mistakes - he puts commas in the wrong place. And articles published under his signature are written by others (employees of Russian shipbuilding companies)
        1. Lirik R
          Lirik R 29 March 2021 23: 27
          0
          Timokhin sometimes writes such nonsense that it is impossible to imagine from employees of any companies) about ZGRLS for example)
          1. Operator
            Operator 30 March 2021 01: 04
            -3
            It is forgivable for employees of shipbuilding companies to make mistakes in the issue of ZGRLS.
            1. Lirik R
              Lirik R 30 March 2021 16: 39
              0
              They are about what they do not understand, and will not write. This Timokhin himself "analyzed"))
              1. Operator
                Operator 30 March 2021 17: 13
                0
                Made, so to speak, his bit - it may well be.
  • DMi
    DMi 17 March 2021 16: 57
    0
    If you are really a letak and take in drums for the Navy, then atl Mig 31 with a dagger. It seems that it was made for such tasks. Inevitable and to the bottom from the first hit.
  • Slavutich
    Slavutich 17 March 2021 17: 33
    0
    Moreover, China, with all its industrial capabilities, for some reason does not hesitate to create "unsinkable aircraft carriers" in the form of bulk islands.

    Not that word
  • geniy
    geniy 17 March 2021 18: 54
    -2
    You all say our country needs naval aviation? But please - I can propose a project.
    The bottom line is that you need a seaplane not just flying over the ocean, but also capable of easily landing on the ocean surface and taking off from it, especially since the usual wave height is still no more than 3 meters.
    So - you need a seaplane not just flying in the air, but also capable of storming in the ocean for many days. This is so that, for example, such seaplanes should sit on the water off the coast of the United States like ducks and always be ready for combat use. That is, you all know that American planes often fly near the very borders of Russia because they have many airfields in Europe and all over the world. And for Russian aircraft, there are no such airfields near the United States at all (not to count Chukotka!), Because there are only oceans around the entire US border. But if you create an aircraft that could sit on the surface of the ocean in any storm for weeks and receive fuel from Russian submarines, that is, completely control the entire coast of the United States. And one submarine with a displacement of 10 thousand tons can easily accommodate 3000 tons of kerosene in its main ballast tanks. Of course, this method of basing is possible only in peacetime, because in case of war these planes will be shot down, well, in case of war they must be immediately relocated to Russia. But in the event of war, American bombers will also be shot down. And peacetime, as you know, lasts 75 years, and may continue for another 50 years. And all these fifty years, Russian seaplanes will spoil the nerves of the Pentagon.
    And the seaplane itself should be two-body - that is, in the form of a catamaran, whose stability is about 10 times greater than that of a single-hull ship. This will allow such a seaplane to withstand any storm or hurricane on the water. And besides, such an aircraft can be a long-range radar patrol - to inspect the entire area of ​​the United States - because there must be more than twenty such seaplanes - in order to inspect the United States from all sides - from the Atlantic, and from the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Arctic, and from the Pacific Ocean.
    And this two-body aircraft can easily be both amphibious and cargo - that is, work as a transport aircraft and carry goods to all distant countries - such as Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia.
    And also this aircraft can be both anti-submarine and bomber. And then such aircraft can be transferred to civilian transport aviation.
    1. clerk
      clerk 17 March 2021 19: 11
      0
      ... the seaplane itself must be two-body - that is, in the form of a catamaran, which has about 10 times more stability than a single-hull ship. This will allow such a seaplane to withstand any storm or hurricane on the water. And besides, such an aircraft can be a long-range radar patrol - to inspect the entire area of ​​the United States - because there must be more than twenty such seaplanes - in order to inspect the United States from all sides
      And this seaplane will have to be called "Carpet-plane". )))))
      1. geniy
        geniy 17 March 2021 21: 04
        0
        And this seaplane will have to be called "Carpet-plane".

        Do you doubt something? Then formulate your objection, if you can ...
        1. clerk
          clerk 17 March 2021 23: 20
          0
          ... Do you doubt something? Then formulate your objection, if you can ...
          ... I do not want to break the rules of the forum.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 17 March 2021 20: 50
    0
    When solving the problems of the fleet, basic aviation can dramatically enhance the capabilities of the fleet, but not replace it.
    Only aviation will make it possible to urgently strengthen our defense in potentially dangerous areas during a threatened period.
    Nuclear submarines are capable of inter-fleet maneuvers. Coastal anti-ship complexes too.
    1. Anzhey V.
      18 March 2021 08: 27
      0
      When solving the problems of the fleet, basic aviation can dramatically enhance the capabilities of the fleet, but not replace it.


      Hello BK! There was no question of replacing it. It was about a sharp increase in combat capabilities in a short time (about 10-15 years).

      Nuclear submarines are capable of inter-fleet maneuvers. Coastal anti-ship complexes too.


      1. Nuclear submarines have nothing to do in the Baltic or the Black Sea.
      2. All our opponents have either a numerical superiority in submarines, or an extremely developed aircraft of an ASW - and some have both.
      3. The nuclear submarine will go from the conditional Pacific Ocean to the conditional Baltic much longer than any air regiment - the slow redeployment of aviation can be so solely for organizational reasons.
      4. The nuclear submarine is a very narrowly targeted and vulnerable weapon. It is critically important for him to have both NK and aviation cover.
      5. DBK - extremely formidable systems, but by themselves are useless. They work as part of a coastal defense system and also need an air defense umbrella.

      Aviation is flexible, mobile and variable.
  • Nazaroff
    Nazaroff 17 March 2021 20: 54
    0
    The author is 100% right! Aviation proved its superiority back in World War II. Having sunk, with their relatively minimal losses, a bunch of ships! And there are many such seemingly formidable and unsinkable battleships. The names of which are on everyone's lips. And the ships of the other classes - do not count ... Therefore, there is essentially nothing to add - everything is said intelligibly. Aviation, one might say, is the most dangerous and rapidly developing type of weapon! Do not take into account, it can either, or traitors. Something like this.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 March 2021 08: 30
    -2
    Nobody offers to get rid of the Strategic Missile Forces because they "have not defeated anyone."


    If you believe some citizens, they will not defeat anyone, because if we suddenly win the war with them, the West will take offense at us.

    the concept of their use (to throw a cruise missile from point A to point B at a distance of 1,5 kilometers to the bad guys and change their location using river routes) is quite clear to the top management.

    Even an amateur has a practical benefit: from the construction of a "rocket-mosquito" fleet. In the eyes of people uninitiated in the intricacies of naval affairs, this looks absolutely intelligible and logical. Unlike complex, obscure, large and expensive aircraft carriers.


    I don't think the question is: "What do we get by building aircraft carriers?" is so difficult that it would not be possible to give an answer to it that is understandable even to the layman. And if there is no answer to it, then maybe the answer is really equal to "nothing but expenses and underinvestment in other areas."

    First of all, because the Americans already had these bombers - they just refitted them, including them in part of the existing system.


    That's it. And they were for a long time, now this technical miracle of techno-fascism during the Cold War, oppressing various alternatively gifted ones, is living out its last years, maybe decades, but there is nothing to replace it with.

    Many people often nod towards the PRC


    For China to get VERY sick, it is enough to block the passages from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, or to keep the Indian Ocean under control. The piquancy of the situation is given by the presence in the Indian Ocean of India itself, which is hostile to China. China nafig does not need territories beyond the Amur, he will buy resources from there for money, but all these resources will cease to matter if the tanker lines are burned out, and in order to prevent this, China will fight to the death at sea.

    And we have no pain points at sea.

    I will not talk about how many of them are necessary in the naval aviation.


    Everything that flies should be at the disposal of the Air Force commander. Airplanes cannot be given to sailors - they will drown.

    specialized naval vehicles


    What is it like? With St. Andrew's flag on the fuselage? So easy where there is paint. Only in no case.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 18 March 2021 16: 17
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Everything that flies should be at the disposal of the Air Force commander. Airplanes cannot be given to sailors - they will drown.

      In general, I agree with your answer, but this conclusion is a clear delusion.
      Firstly, naval forces must be provided with helicopters for any ship, and not only for warships. To begin with, at least tie them to them, so that each ship's commander knows how and knows how to work with combat aircraft while he is in the joint action zone.
      Secondly, since we have already created the Northern Fleet as a district, and the Pacific Fleet will probably follow them, then they cannot do without aviation, not only sea, but also land.
      In general, I think it's time for the naval commanders to rebuild their thinking, including mastering the skills not only of navigation, but also of managing versatile forces and means, which will be more and more in the fleet.
  • geniy
    geniy 18 March 2021 11: 06
    0
    2021 03 18 / 10.24
    As you know, Russia now has only one aircraft carrier, and even that one will be under constant repair for decades and then it will simply be cut into scrap metal.
    But how can Russia quickly build many aircraft carriers, albeit small ones? And for this you can turn the frigates of Project 22350 into small aircraft carriers.
    Conversion of Project 22350 heavy frigates into small aircraft carriers. The total displacement of these ships is 5400 tons. Moreover, the main engines are gas turbine, that is, they are powered by kerosene, like aircraft. This means that in hostilities it will be possible to use the fuel of ship engines for aircraft, or vice versa - the fuel of aircraft for the engines of the ship.
    The dry weight of the MiG-29 fighter is 11,6 tons, which means that the Project 22350 frigate will be able to take on board a dozen of these fighters with folded wings.
    Fighters of the MiG-29 type land directly on the water, and a slip is arranged at the stern of the frigate. The aircraft have front closable air intakes and a possibly closable nozzle. And with closed air intakes, this fighter turns into a speedboat. And it has buoyancy. And for the MiG-29 fighter it is necessary to make folding wings.
    Moreover, since the fans of the engines will suck in air from above, the water will not get into the engines, and the fighter can sail forward several tens of meters and swim with its bow end directly onto the slip. And along the sides of the frigate, install narrow sections of the deck with a fluoroplastic coating for the takeoff of these fighters. The hull length of 135 m is quite enough for the side sections of the deck for the takeoff of fighters.
    The transformation of a frigate into an aircraft carrier is all the more possible because at the stern it has a hangar for helicopters.
    1. K298rtm
      K298rtm 18 March 2021 21: 15
      0
      And if, instead of part of the crew quarters for the l / s, arrange a Central City Hospital, then the frigate turns, the frigate turns ... into an underwater aircraft carrier. He will be able to stealthily get close (in the "sneaking" mode) to the enemy (sorry - to the partner) shores and cause unacceptable damage.
      1. geniy
        geniy 18 March 2021 21: 45
        0
        Submarine aircraft carrier
        here the main trick is to have only one aircraft carrier in service for a huge country - this is too little. You need at least 4 aircraft carriers, because America has 10. And if each American aircraft carrier has 90 aircraft, then the total number of aircraft carrier aircraft in the United States is about 1000 units. This means that it is desirable for Russia to have about the same. But on a nuclear submarine, thanks to the compact arrangement of aircraft with fully folded wings, retracted landing gear, folded vertical keels, it will be possible to place about 200 aircraft on each large nuclear submarine. Such a large number is needed because the Americans currently have a huge numerical superiority over Russia. And if each Russian submarine-aircraft carrier will carry 200 aircraft, and all such submarine aircraft carriers need to be built 4, then by simple multiplication we get that at least 800 aircraft carrier aircraft should be in flight condition, and at the same time it is still necessary to have a reserve of serviceable aircraft for failure event - about 200 aircraft. That is, the total number of aircraft carrier aircraft for Russia needs to be built - about a thousand units (1000).
        But the question is: why in general is it worth designing and building a submarine-aircraft carrier, if ordinary surface aircraft carriers exist perfectly in the world and have proven themselves quite well. But the fact is that in peacetime, surface ships can safely navigate the seas and oceans, and during a war they will undergo numerous blows and many of them will sink. And this is especially true of Russian surface ships and aircraft carriers - because the balance of forces on the seas and oceans is very great in favor of the opponents of the Russian fleet. If you count only aircraft carriers, and count very roughly and approximately, then only America has about 10 aircraft carriers, and most of them are nuclear with a displacement of 90 thousand tons. Plus the medium and small aircraft carriers of England, France, Spain, and other countries, which are likely to join the NATO bloc in the event of a major war with Russia, it is likely that several dozen - about 20 enemy aircraft carriers will be opposed against one Russian aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov". That is, the balance of forces in surface ships is simply unrealistic.
        But the aircraft carrier submarine completely upsets this ratio. Because a nuclear submarine can make at least dozens of round-the-world voyages and strike in a completely unexpected place. Moreover, in military affairs there is such a principle as the destruction of enemy troops in parts. That is, it does not matter at all what the total number of enemy troops is, but if they are all scattered over a large territory, then the balance of forces in one particular place is important. And if one Russian nuclear submarine aircraft carrier has 200 jet aircraft, and an American aircraft carrier only 90, then it will be possible to destroy each enemy aircraft carrier one by one. That is, the ratio of forces in a particular place plays a greater role than their total number. For example, during the First World War, the British fleet had a large numerical superiority over the German, but German submarines scattered across the world's oceans had a civilian unarmed vessel and sank them with impunity until then. until the British came up with the idea of ​​introducing a system of convoys. The fact that the ratio of quantitative forces between submarines and surface ships was clearly shown to the whole world by an episode during the First World War with the German submarine U-9 with a displacement of only 500 tons, which sank in one battle three English armored cruisers with a displacement of about 10 thousand tons each - that is, the initial ratio of forces was 30 tons versus 000 tons - the total displacement of the British ships was 500 times more! But just one German submarine easily sank them all.
        Of course, many "experts" will immediately point out to the author that Germany was defeated in both World War I and World War II, despite all its submarines. But here you have to understand. that Germany in both wars was defeated on land and her submarines remained undefeated. And although stupid connoisseurs will immediately point out that in the Second World War, German submarines were sunk by hundreds of Aglikans, but this is only because of the stupidity of German designers. The fact is that the German designers did not think of immediately applying the simplest things. For example, what prevented them from inventing a pipe for air intake from the surface - the so-called "snorkel" - but not by the end of the Second World War, but at the beginning of the First World War? Moreover, such air intake pipes were invented in the Russian Navy not even once, but several times - first during the Russo-Japanese War, and then in the First World War, Lieutenant Commander Gudima. And after all, there is absolutely nothing tricky about such a pipe - the Germans of such a technically advanced nation could have come up with air intake pipes back in the First World War and with their help sink thousands of British ships.
        Likewise, fake experts will immediately point out that in the Second World War, locators were used against German boats, and with their help they destroyed hundreds of German boats. BUT, in fact, this happened because the submarine's deckhouse, which rises 5 meters above the water, plays the role of the so-called "corner reflector" - which reflects the radio waves of the radar beam back to it, and thereby amplifies the reflected beam hundreds of times. But ordinary people do not even know that the energy of the radar and sonar beam is, for the most part, uselessly dissipated in space, and only one thousandth of this energy is returned back in the form of a reflected beam. So - the conning tower of a submarine Everyone understands that ships focus this beam with a radio and sonar and thereby amplifying it hundreds of times back to the enemy radar. That is, the cabin of each submarine plays the role of a traitor who literally shouts to the enemies: "I am here!", "I am here!" And all people are so stupid that until now no one understands this. And only today are they going to design and build a pipeless submarine.
        The second factor of the war at sea in World War II: every German submarine was obliged to report its whereabouts daily to the German command so that it could launch attacks from its "wolf packs". But the British, don't be fools, set up a network of direction finding stations on all the islands, and immediately determined the direction to the German radio station, having received the crosshair of bearings, they easily determined the location of each German submarine, even without decoding their radiograms. And this is only for the common fools they make idiotic films like the British deciphered German radio messages using the Enigma code. But it was only at the end of the war that the Germans figured out how to stop it: they began to record their radio broadcasts on an electromagnet and replay them in an accelerated mode - in about one second, so that the British simply did not have time to find directions. And already on the shore, every radio program was also recorded on a tape recorder and played in slow motion. So if the Germans were even a little smarter, then the British would not be able to defeat their submarines, and only the fact that the Soviet troops took Berlin and defeated Germany stopped the activities of German submarines. But now all over the world an accelerated radio transmission in thousandths of a second is widely used - so that there is no way to track the submarine.
        And here's another fact: only by the end of the war the Germans thought of covering the entire surface of the submarine with rubber. And the rubber coating greatly reduces the reflected ultrasonic and radio waves of the locators. That is, by doing so, they greatly reduced the visibility of submarines. But this was done on only one submarine and at the very end of the war, and what prevented them from doing it at the very beginning of the war was only their own stupidity. But all modern submarines are covered with such a coating, which means that it will be very difficult to find them.
        Or here's another example of design stupidity. Everyone understands that submarines get holes and sink from the fact that water flows into their hulls - moreover, many ordinary people who watch documentaries with their own eyes have seen holes on the sunken submarines lying at the bottom of the Second World War. and so - in fact, you all saw something quite different from what it really was! This is because WWII submarines were double-hulled or one-and-a-half hulls - that is, they had a strong hull made of thick plating and a light outer hull made of very thin steel sheets only 3 mm thick. And when a mine or torpedo exploded, this thin skin of the outer hull was easily torn like paper and large holes were formed in area. But the fact is that the plating of a strong hull did not break at all so easily, and gave only narrow cracks or rivets fastening the wheelhouse to the hull weakened and water poured in through these small holes and drowned the underwater sump, because the underwater buoyancy reserve was only 1% of the displacement ... but what prevented the designers from covering the strong hull of submarines with elastic rubber or some sticky adhesive so that the holes would be sealed by themselves and the pressure of the water from outside would by itself press this substance against the holes. But nobody thought of that!
        1. K298rtm
          K298rtm 18 March 2021 21: 48
          0
          I am ashamed to ask: Did you manage to write everything in 30 minutes?
          1. geniy
            geniy 18 March 2021 21: 58
            0
            Did you manage to write everything in 30 minutes?

            Of course not. It was all written 5 months ago
        2. geniy
          geniy 18 March 2021 21: 53
          0
          But not only that: after all, any submarine can easily be made completely unsinkable. The fact is that there are inflatable rubber pontoons, which are sometimes used to lift sunken ships and submarines. So - if each submarine has such pontoons tightly packed in special containers, and then inflate them in case of holes, then it will not sink in case of any damage - even if its entire strong hull is filled with water. That is, having about a hundred close-packed pontoons, each supposedly sunk submarine will be able to independently emerge from the bottom dozens of times and continue to fight. But why did not the Germans come up with this simple matter? Although there is a small constructive trick. But now there is a full opportunity to make all Russian submarines completely unsinkable, unlike surface ships. But submarine designers are pretty stupid and don't know about the simplest physical laws. For example, the fact that many substances and objects are, in principle, INCOMPRESSIBLE - that is, they can be immersed at any - even the greatest depth and nothing will happen to them. The general stupidity of the population is simply limitless. For example, the question was asked - why are there almost no fish in the ocean depressions? So all the respondents answered as if at such a depth there is a huge pressure that crushes the fish. But in fact, all fish are INCOMPRESSIBLE, but there is simply not enough oxygen in the ocean depressions, which is why there are few fish there. But submarine designers are also stupid, at first they did not know that diesel fuel for submarine engines is incompressible. And at first, the diesel fuel was stored in the tanks of a strong hull, and only after a while they figured out to store fuel instead of water in the ballast tanks of the light hull, and from this the cruising range of German submarines immediately increased several times. But the stupidity is that modern designers do not understand this principle either. Because if you build an aircraft carrier submarine, then the fuel for jet aircraft - kerosene - can be stored in tens of thousands of tons in ballast tanks instead of water. In the USSR, several submarines of the Typhoon-Akula project were built, which were jokingly nicknamed "water carriers" - because they carried tens of thousands of tons of useless sea water in their ballast tanks. And by the way, the fools, the Germans, also did not know this principle of INCOMPRESSIBILITY. But fresh water is just as INCREDIBLE as sea water. And so stupid Germans throughout the Second World War were tormented by the fact that they did not have enough fresh water - only a few glasses a day per person, and it was very easy to seal their main ballast tanks and store tens of tons of fresh water in rubber cylinders. I will not talk about one more thing, but modern nuclear-powered submarines in economic mode are capable of sailing for 20 years without entering ports, and only a limited supply of food does not allow them to sail for more than six months.
          So, technically, there are no difficulties to build a double-hull submarine catamaran, on the principle of architecture like the Soviet submarines of the Typhoon - (Akula) class with an underwater displacement of about 48 thousand tons, carrying in its hulls up to 200 jet fighters of the MiG-29 or MiG-35 type with a mass of an empty aircraft of 13,5 tons (the rest of the weight of the aircraft is incompressible fuel - kerosene, which is stored in ballast tanks of about 20 tons, and ammunition, also stored in a special way. In total, 000 aircraft will weigh only 200 tons - just a minuscule for a ship with Therefore, in addition to aircraft, such a submarine can also load a hundred tanks weighing 2700 tons each - a total of about 50 tons, or another hundred armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles weighing 5000 tons each. landing with hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers and thousands of tons of fuel and ammunition, unloaded ashore using hinged nose ramps. And at the same time, such a landing force, for example, on an island, will have a strong air cover of two hundred MiG-15-29 jet fighter-bombers. This is similar to how the British fought the Anglo-Argentine war - they landed troops on the Falkland Islands, which were supported by light British aircraft carriers. And if Russia has at least one huge nuclear submarine aircraft carrier, it will be possible to land a large assault force on any island in the world. But not necessarily a submarine aircraft carrier should only carry out military conquest operations. It is quite possible and purely humanitarian - for example, if an earthquake or other disaster strikes in any country, then such a submarine can easily bring thousands of tons of food, gasoline, fresh water, trucks and medicines.
          But even purely in the role of an aircraft carrier, such a submarine could be of immense benefit to Russia. in peacetime without any fighting. I will explain a little the political situation for those readers who do not understand anything at all. So in modern times, as in the past, Russia is surrounded by NATO countries by a large number of practically hostile states - hostile 28 countries, and this is not counting those that have not yet entered the NATO bloc - Ukraine, Georgia, or distant Australia, New Zealand. Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea and many more. And now American and NATO planes can easily fly up to the borders of Russia, which they often do in kind. And Russia, in fact, cannot answer them and especially America with almost nothing - it is too far away. Only in the Far East - Alaska The United States is close to Russia, but it is an almost deserted region. And from the eastern side of the United States, Russian planes can fly only with their last bit of strength on the last drops of fuel. So such long-distance flights are rare. But if Russia had a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier with two hundred aircraft on board, then this ship could easily patrol near the eastern shores of America and release Russian jet fighters so that they would not violate US borders in any way, but at the same time, they would fly very close to them, clearly showing all Americans that not only American planes can fly near the coast of Crimea and other Russian borders, but Russian planes can also make the same flights in response. Well, this is not to mention the fact that a Russian nuclear submarine aircraft carrier can easily sail to any hot spot and provide at least moral support: For example, the Americans threatened the state of Venezuela that they would make a military invasion of it, and after all, if Russia had a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier , then he could easily sail to the coast of Venezuela and just calmly swim there peacefully, not bothering anyone. Or a few decades ago, the American fleet staged an invasion of Panama and captured it, and if the USSR had a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier, it could slightly prevent this. Yes, everyone knows the American war in Korea. when planes from American aircraft carriers fought against North Korea, and neither Korea nor the USSR had a single aircraft carrier to drive off the American ones. Likewise, in the Vietnam War, American planes flew to bomb not only from land bases, but also from aircraft carriers. But a Russian nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carrier could also conduct operations against land-based countries by flying its planes a thousand kilometers from the coast.
        3. geniy
          geniy 18 March 2021 21: 53
          -1
          But there is another aspect of armed war at sea - the destruction of merchant shipping, which was originally what all submarines were doing. And the nuclear submarine aircraft carrier could become the best weapon, because it could not only banally shoot torpedoes at a distance of ten kilometers, but also bomb from planes a thousand kilometers away. And if all the submarines of the First and Second World War and shook the field of view of about 50 cable cables from themselves, that is, they detected enemy ships in a circle with a diameter of about 20 kilometers, then the submarine aircraft carrier firing its aircraft in different directions and in addition with the help of their radars will be able to control a circle with a diameter of about 2000 kilometers - that is, a hundred times larger than German submarines! And this means that if the third world war or just a big war starts, then one Russian aircraft carrier in just one first day of the war will be able to destroy most of the enemy transport ships in the Atlantic Ocean. And this is on condition that Russia has only one single submarine aircraft carrier, and if there are more of them - for example: two, or three, or four? The Americans have eleven huge aircraft carriers, and each of them is also guarded by several warships. Thus, in the event of a major war, several Russian submarine aircraft carriers can easily stop all cargo shipping in the Atlantic Ocean. and not only shipping but also shoot down American heavy transport planes flying across the Atlantic and ban all passenger aircraft from flying. Therefore, all the Western NATO countries located in Eurome will almost instantly be left to fight one-on-one with powerful Russia, and they will not be able to receive help from America due to the blockade of the Atlantic Ocean by Russian submarine aircraft carriers.
          But even without any war, the nuclear submarine aircraft carrier will show all hostile Western countries who is the boss in the world. If a Russian submarine - an aircraft carrier simply floats in the Atlantic Ocean and from time to time floats up, releasing its jet fighters into the air, then they will be able to patrol over the Atlantic and fly around all civil ships and warships encountered, as well as rise to a height of 10 kilometers (maximum height flight MiG-29 = 18 km) and pass alongside with airliners of all countries. This will clearly show the whole world that if only a BIG war begins, then one Russian submarine-aircraft carrier will easily destroy all transport ships in the Atlantic Ocean, and ban flights of passenger airliners under threat of their destruction.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 13
    0
    already read a nicely intelligent person